High Court of Gauhati12 June 2026

Debojit Deb v. Union of India

For assessee

WP(C) NO. 1653 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where assessee executed works contracts for government departments and exemption was claimed under relevant service tax notification while demand was raised solely based on Income-tax Form 26AS data without independent scrutiny or recording pre-conditions for invoking extended limitation period, demand was unsustainable and assumption of jurisdiction by adjudicating authority was unauthorized

Provisions considered

Section 73, read with sections 75, 77 and 78, of Finance Act, 1994 - Section 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

GSTAT Agra24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jupiter Buildtech (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where real estate developer refunded service tax received on advances for cancelled bookings after GST transition and treated refunded tax as ITC to adjust liability, service tax paid before appointed date was not input tax under GST, ITC was not admissible, and refund could only be claimed under transitional provisions of existing law, not by unilateral credit in electronic ledger

Related rulings

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Debojit Deb v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Debojit Deb v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Jupiter Buildtech (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Read the full analysis