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.
17 rulings found
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee challenged Section 73 proceedings alleging non-service of statutory notice for wrongful ITC, but record showed service of a detailed demand- cum-show-cause notice for the relevant period, contention of absence of notice was unfounded and proceeding was not without jurisdiction, with any residual grievances to be adjudicated in statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged unsigned and allegedly defective Form GST DRC- 07 electronic summary regarding period and quantum, such electronic defects alone did not affect jurisdiction of adjudication order, as summary cannot substitute main adjudication, and any inconsistency among notice, order, and summary must be tested on facts and can be redressed through statutory appeal. GST: Where assessee challenged imposition of interest and penalty as exceeding show-cause notice for period July 2017 to March 2018 invoking section 75(7), since determination of whether order exceeded notice required conjoint examination of notice and order, mere assertion did not warrant writ interference and remedy could be pursued before appellate authority. GST: Where assessee alleged denial of hearing during demand adjudication for July 2017 to March 2018 but records showed service of demand-cum-show-cause and no reply from assessee nor any material indicating exclusion from adjudicatory process, non-compliance with Section 75 could be addressed in statutory appeal and no ground for extraordinary interference was established.…
Delhi High Court
Where GST-registered partnership challenged demand raised on grounds of non-consideration of reply to SCN involving allegations of suppression, since full opportunity to contest was provided and disputes pertained to merits involving record appraisal, remedy lay with appellate authority and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted, thus writ petition was not maintainable GST: Where petitioner was issued a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years for alleged fraud under audit, statutory provisions did not require separate notices per year and allowed composite notices, especially where patterns over years were relevant, so mere consolidation of demand periods did not render such notice jurisdictionally defective or warrant writ interference, though limitation objections for any year required fact-based appellate examination
Allahabad High Court
Where adjudication order under Section 73 was challenged for being non- speaking and for non-consideration of reply regarding mismatch between GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A and GSTR-9, since authority considered assessee's reconciliation reply and hearing, and burden to reconcile ITC claimed was not discharged by mere chart without explanation, writ remedy was not maintainable and statutory appeal could be pursued
Supreme Court
Where assessee engaged in scrap trading faced proceedings for alleged fraudulent ITC and challenged adequacy of SCN and opportunity on grounds of incomplete notice and misdescription, no breach of natural justice was established as adequate opportunity was given, SCN errors were typographical, and relevant relied upon documents for two periods were available, thus writ petition was rejected; instant court was of view that no interference was required as HC had rightly observed that assessee had an alternative remedy under section 107, SLP was to be disposed of
Kerala High Court
Where a petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to be heard in assessment proceedings due to internal disputes, health issues and entrustment of portal credentials to counsel, but hearing notices were repeatedly uploaded on GST portal and not acted upon, valid service of notice stood established and responsibility to monitor portal rested with petitioner, so writ petition challenging orders was not maintainable
Rajasthan High Court
Where sole proprietorship discontinued on death of proprietor and adjudication orders for tax, interest and penalty were passed against deceased without notice or hearing to legal heir, section 93(1)(b) imposed recovery from estate through legal representative, subject to procedural requirements of proper notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order under section 75. GST: Where adjudication order and tax demand were issued against a deceased proprietor without notice or hearing to legal heir and without a reasoned speaking order, assessment proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance with statutory requirements and orders were quashed, allowing for fresh proceedings after giving hearing to legal heir
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner challenged demand order alleging non- communication and denial of hearing after winding up of business, but physical hearing opportunity had been granted and GSTIN continued to remain valid, failure to reply or appear amounted to negligence, and plea of breach of natural justice was untenable as no violation thereof was made out
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner challenged SCN and OIO on ground that a gap of six-months between SCN and OIO was not maintained and also there was violation of earlier liberty to file reply, maintaining a gap of six-month period was merely directory; since repeated opportunities for reply and hearing were given, and OIO was passed within limitation period, challenge on account of not maintaining time gap did not vitiate proceedings. GST: Where petitioner alleged denial of effective hearing as order was issued within five days of last hearing, since records showed multiple notices, repeated reminders, a videographed hearing, and supply of seized records, there was substantial compliance with statutory hearing requirements; no prejudice being caused from a shorter gap, making statutory appeal instead of filing writ was proper remedy. GST: Where petitioner challenged OIO and SCN by filing writ petition despite Supreme Court's order relegating to statutory appeal with pre-deposit, since no exceptional ground was established, adequate opportunity was given, OIO was within limitation, and time-limit plea was not raised earlier, writ petition was not entertainable; lliberty was to be given to pursue statutory appellate remedy
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee engaged in scrap trading faced proceedings for alleged fraudulent ITC and challenged adequacy of show cause notice and opportunity on grounds of incomplete notice and misdescription, no breach of natural justice was established as adequate opportunity was given, SCN errors were typographical, and relevant relied upon documents for two periods were available, thus writ petition was to be rejected
Madras High Court
Where petitioner engaged in sale of rock boulders was found to have under-declared turnover when compared to high seigniorage fees during relevant periods, and escaped turnover was estimated using National Standard Method, issuance of notice and extended limitation under Section 74 was justified based on prima facie material, rendering challenge to limitation and procedure meritless
Calcutta High Court
Where petitioner challenged show cause notice under Article 226, citing lack of jurisdiction and bona fide GST-paid purchases, and department alleged transactions with non-existent suppliers and ineligible ITC, interference was declined as only a notice existed and statutory adjudication remedy was available; petitioner was directed to reply and authority to adjudicate after hearing parties
Madras High Court
Where assessee availed and utilized excess ITC over GSTR-2A figures and failed to pay reverse charge tax on foreign agency commissions, such acts constituted wrongful availment and suppression with intent to evade tax, justifying invocation of extended limitation under Section 74 GST: Orders passed in November 2024 under Section 73 for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 were within limitation, as statutory extensions governed computation of time, and limitation issue stood concluded by binding precedent
Madras High Court
Where assessees challenged demands raised invoking extended-period on ground that there was lack of foundational facts in show cause notices, in view of fact that prior communications like scrutiny, audit or inspection had already conveyed requisite reasons and facts, invocation of extended-period was valid; absence of reasons in show cause notice alone was not fatal if jurisdictional facts were discernible from earlier communications or on record, subject to prima facie satisfaction under section 74. GST: Where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is not established, proceedings initiated under Section 74 need not fail but may be converted into Section 73 proceedings; such conversion preserves valid tax demands while excluding consequences dependent on extended-period ingredients. GST: Where central authorities issued consolidated show cause notices spanning multiple years and parties disputed permissibility of such composite notices, consolidated SCNs covering multiple periods were deemed valid, as normal and extended-period demands were not tax-period specific and statute did not prohibit common SCNs for multiple periods GST: Where assessee, on being inspected for multiple years and issued DRC-01A and DRC-01 alleging fraud, non-cooperation, documentation lapses and failures to provide financials, challenged show cause notices as pre-determined, since GST scheme allows communication of reasons throughout proceedings and detailed SCN was intended to enable assessee for rebuttal, writ challenge was not maintainable and merits had to be adjudicated in their own course.…
Madras High Court
Where assessee operated two registrations and department inspection revealed circular transactions and fictitious ITC on non-supplies, such findings prima facie justified invoking extended limitation period under GST for both registrations and challenge to such invocation was untenable as all procedural requirements for Erode registration were duly followed as threshold for invoking extended period under GST regime is lower than previous indirect tax laws GST: Where post-remand DRC-07 orders for Gobichettipalayam were passed without prior DRC-01 show cause notice, such orders were to be set aside for fresh adjudication with opportunity and natural justice, while Erode proceedings that followed proper sequence with DRC-01A and DRC-01 reply suffered no procedural infirmity and were not to be interfered
Madras High Court
Where SCNs alleging tax or ITC fraud for periods 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 were issued in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 prior to expiry of statutory limitation and after issuance of DRC-01A intimation, challenge on limitation was untenable as statutory timelines were complied with, and SCNs therefore survived. GST: Where petitioner failed to reply to DRC-01A in respect of 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 leading to non-cooperation and suppression under Explanation-2, invocation of Section 74 machinery was justified and, with disputed facts involved, remedy lay in adjudication by replying to SCNs rather than writ, so writ petitions seeking quash were not maintainable
Madras High Court
Where petitioner company was merged and after NCLT's approval, unutilized ITC and liabilities were transferred and department parallelly initiated audit-based and scrutiny-based proceedings for same period, audit and scrutiny notices could be issued separately as each arose from distinct processes; suppression of facts being disclosed as was required for invoking section 74, limitation period would be extended and, thus, SCNs could not be challenged filing writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where registered persons challenged orders assessing liability for fraudulent ITC availed based on a key witness's statement but were denied cross-examination, right to cross-examination was not absolute since allegations pertained to bogus ITC and could be rebutted by documentary evidence, thus, mere denial of cross- examination did not vitiate adjudication, making statutory appeal appropriate remedy