^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes

GST Forms

My Favourites ^New

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Staff Manager ^New

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

JAC OLIVE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. & ANOTHER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SOUTH BENGAL AND OTHERS
(Calcutta High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

T. S. SIVAGNANAM CHIEF
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Pet. Counsel

Ankit Kanodia

Megha Agarwal

Jitesh Sah.

Res. Counsel

T.m. Siddiqui

T. Chakraborty

S. Sanyal.

Petitioner / Applicant	JAC OLIVE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. & ANOTHER
Respondent	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SOUTH BENGAL AND OTHERS
Court	Calcutta High Court
State	West Bengal
Date	Sep 29, 2023
Order No.	MAT/1425/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023 with MAT/1426/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023
Citation	2023(9) TAXREPLY 8060
Original Order
My Favorites	Add to Fav ☆ Add to favorites.

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
1. These intra court appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Bench dated 17th July, 2023 in WPA 13343 of 2023 and WPA 13349 of 2023. 2. The issue involved in both the writ petitions are identical inasmuch as the assessees are same person and the only difference being the period for which the proceedings have been initiated. 3. The appellants had filed the writ petition challenging the preliminary report which was drawn by the authorities concerned dated 02.06.2023. 4. The challenge to the said report was negated and the learned Single Bench held that the writ petition is premature. 5. We entirely agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Bench in the said order. This conclusion is also substantiated with additional reasons, namely, after the preliminary report a final report has been drawn on 24.07.2023 and communicated to the appellants/writ petitioners by giving the appellants/writ petitioners an opportunity to file their r....