Gauhati High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
9 rulings found
Gauhati High Court
Where search was conducted at business premises of partnership firm under Section 67 based on FORM GST INS-01 authorization, plea that search was vitiated for want of authorization failed as valid authorization existed, statute did not require prior disclosure of reasons to taxable person, and adjudicating authority was to verify validity of authorization and records during adjudication. GST: Where department raised demand alleging misdeclaration or suppression after search and investigation found incriminating documents, absence of scrutiny proceedings under Section 61 did not invalidate consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice since search under Section 67 and investigation provided foundation, but if any demand rests solely on return scrutiny, relevant statutory compliance must be ensured and can be examined during adjudication. GST: Where petitioner received consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice invoking Section 74(1) for certain years and Section 74A(1) for another, objection to consolidation was untenable as no bar exists against a multi-year notice, but authority must determine liability and applicability of each provision separately for each financial year with attention to limitation and statutory requirements. GST: Where SCN invoked penalty provisions under both sections 74 or 74A and 122 in respect of same act or omission, such reference in notice does not violate bar against double penalty under section 75(13) at proposal stage, but authorities must ensure no double penalty is actually imposed during adjudication and imposition in compliance with statutory prohibition.…
Delhi High Court
Where directors and managing directors were subjected to penalty under section 122(1) for alleged fraudulent availment and utilization of ITC by their companies, and applicability of section 122(1) to a person who was not a taxable person was pending consideration before Supreme Court, writ petition was not to be entertained as statutory appeal under section 107 was available, thus, petitioners were relegated to appellate remedy
Allahabad High Court
Where petitioner challenged penalty above Rs. 1 crore under section 122(1) imposed by Deputy Commissioner after participating on merits, State circulars provided Deputy Commissioner authority for amounts above Rs. 2.5 crores and proper officer jurisdiction, thus, as authority was competent and petitioner had elected to contest on merits, writ petition was not to be entertained and statutory appeal remedy was to be directed
Delhi High Court
Where penalty proceedings for issuance of invoices without actual supply and wrongful ITC were initiated after an investigation found recipient non-existent, and statutory appeal under section 107 was available to challenge both jurisdiction and procedural grounds, writ petition under Article 226 was not entertained, and petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, leaving all questions open for consideration by Appellate Authority
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner, a proprietor engaged in trading agro-chemical products, was issued SCN for mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance leading to demand of tax, interest and penalties, proper officer adjudicating tax liability from SCN was also competent to impose all consequential penalties in same adjudication as statute does not require separate proceedings, showing no jurisdictional error
Madras High Court
Where petitioner challenged order imposing penalty for non-maintenance of records relying on section 47 that penalty under Section 122 could not be imposed after levying late fee thereunder, since section 47 pertains to belated filing of returns and section 122 prescribes penalty in respect of several matters including non- maintenance of books of accounts, there was no infirmity in order warranting interference and writ petition was to be dismissed
Telangana High Court
As discrepancy between order-in-original and DRC-07 summary was rectified during writ proceedings, petitioner was relegated to statutory appeal; liberty was granted to file appeal with delay-condonation application and pre-deposit within two weeks, raising all factual and legal grounds, subject to appellate authority’s satisfaction on delay
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioners, partners of a trading firm were found complicit in generating fake invoices and e-way bills without actual supply, with admissions and forensic evidence linking them to hawala operations and cash returns, penalty was rightly imposed vide order passed under section 122 as their knowledge and consent was established, and absence of natural justice breach made writ interference unwarranted
Gauhati High Court
Where partners of construction firm were found to benefit from GST evasion involving undisclosed cash without invoices on transfer of development rights, and retained the benefit with transactions at their instance, penalty under Section 122(1A) was properly imposed on them as persons responsible, since the provision targets natural persons behind violations irrespective of entity structure. GST: Where SCN invoking Section 122(1A) was issued after its enforcement, targeting partners responsible for benefits retained from violations originally punishable under Section 122(1) during prior periods, Section 122(1A) merely identified liable persons without creating new violations, its application was valid for past transactions so long as SCN was issued after Section 122(1A) came into force