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.
2 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.…
Gujarat High Court
Where unregistered coaching institute admitted cash suppression and liability during search and voluntarily paid tax dues post-admission, with no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of coercion, such payment cannot be termed coercive recovery and allegation raised after two years is an afterthought not warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. GST: Where after search petitioner deposited quantified dues voluntarily via DRC-03, issuance of DRC-04 was only an acknowledgment with no prescribed timeline, and payment with interest and penalty concluded proceedings, so later refund claim and coercion narratives were afterthoughts, making rejection of refund plea and delayed DRC-04 issuance legally justified. GST: Where unregistered coaching institute deposited tax, interest and penalty voluntarily during search after quantification based on seized evidence of student count and fees, refund claim was rejected since refund arises only if tax was not payable or paid in excess, and no illegality was found in rejection, making cited circular and case laws inapplicable