High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Gauhati, newest first.
39 rulings
Gauhati High Court
Where GST registration of transport service provider was cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns and period for seeking revocation had expired, cancellation order was to be set aside and registration was to be restored subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days and petitioner remained liable for tax, interest, penalty and late fees
Gauhati High Court
Where authorities seized cash, along with other items, during search under section 67 but cash did not fall within permissible articles for seizure, such action was illegal and, although cash was refunded before adjudication, petitioner was entitled to interest for period of illegal withholding and respondent authorities were required to compute and pay such interest. GST: Where search under section 67 resulted in seizure of mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card, and since SCN was already issued, continued retention of seized goods was unwarranted and Investigating Officer was required to arrange immediate release of said items to petitioner
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of petitioner engaged in works contract services was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six months during 2023-25 amid acute financial hardship, cancellation was set aside restoring registration, subject to filing all pending returns within 30 days, with liability for applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees maintained from date of order
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns and appeal for restoration was dismissed as time barred, writ relief was allowed by setting aside cancellation on condition that all pending returns be filed within 30 days with requisite payments, and limitation for demand under Sections 73(10)/74(10) to run from date of present order except for period governed by Section 44
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and failure to respond to notice, restoration of registration was to be allowed as subject to petitioners filing all pending returns within 30 days and remained liable for arrears comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee
Gauhati High Court
Where assessee company's GST registration was cancelled without service of show cause notice and inability to file returns was due to portal unfamiliarity, cancellation was set aside and assessee was allowed to file pending returns within 30 days, computation of statutory period to start from judgment date, but assessee remained liable for tax, penalty, interest and late fee
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.…
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.…
Gauhati High Court
Power conferred under section 67(4) can only be exercised upon initiation of search proceedings and so long search proceedings are continuing, keeping premises of petitioner sealed for last four months was illegal and against mandate of section 67(4), as power under Section 67(4) ceases to exist once search proceedings culminated with seizure of goods, documents, books or things
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner filed GST return for 2018-19 on 23.10.2019 and availed ITC, denial of ITC by tax authority was unsustainable since section 16(5) allowed ITC for returns filed up to 30.11.2021, making benefit of ITC for 2018-19 period available to petitioner, thus, order denying ITC was to be set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under section 74 on grounds that prior dropping of GST registration cancellation barred subsequent adjudication for tax or ITC involving fraud, since cancellation proceedings and section 74 adjudication operate in distinct spheres, such challenge was misconceived and writ was not maintainable, leaving petitioner with opportunity to file a reply before adjudication
Gauhati High Court
Where DGGI officer issued a consolidated demand-cum-show cause notice covering multiple financial years under CGST regime and petitioners challenged permissibility of such consolidation after not filing a reply, since law as per Tata Projects Ltd. permits consolidated notices and adjudication for multiple periods, writ challenge to such consolidated notice was not maintainable. GST: Where petitioners received consolidated show cause notice for tax or ITC not involving fraud and failed to reply before seeking writ remedy nearly a year later, since initiation under general or fraud-based provisions is fact-specific and determination of fraud requires factual examination, writ jurisdiction was not maintainable at notice stage and parties must pursue statutory adjudication and appeals
Gauhati High Court
Where order imposing tax, interest and penalty for FY 2018-19 under Assam GST Act was passed on 30.04.2024 without any State notification extending limitation under Section 168A for said year, statutory period for passing order had expired on 31.12.2023, thus order was time-barred and unsustainable in law and was set aside. GST: Where tax, interest and penalty were imposed under an order that failed to follow Section 75(6) format and was passed without providing assessee opportunity of hearing as prescribed by Section 75(4), breach of statutory procedure vitiated adjudication and such impugned order could not be sustained in law and was set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners promoted as Executive Assistants and transferred on ICT post-2015 Recruitment Rules, which provided for separate cadres and no provision for absorption, with CBIC’s policy banning ICT except limited relaxations, repatriation orders treating ICTs as loan postings were valid and no infirmity arose in upholding impermissibility of ICT postings
Gauhati High Court
Where Proper Officer issued a consolidated show cause notice and passed a single order covering multiple financial years for confirming tax, interest and penalty, issuance of such consolidated notice and order was within jurisdiction and authority, and challenge to competence on this ground was not sustainable with merits of the order left open for statutory appeal
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioners challenged show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration on ground that notice was vague and did not specify statutory provisions or rules allegedly violated, such foundational notice lacking material particulars was unsustainable in law and therefore set aside, without precluding authorities from initiating fresh action as per CGST Act and Rules upon proven infraction
Gauhati High Court
Where bona fide purchaser paid GST to registered seller and held valid tax invoice, denial of input tax credit solely due to seller’s failure to file returns or pay tax was not lawful, remedy lay against defaulting seller and not purchaser, thus treating ITC as excess and raising rectification demand was set aside
Gauhati High Court
Where partnership firm’s registration was cancelled based on stale show cause notice with no follow-up action for nearly two years and without affording proper or timely hearing, cancellation order was set aside as not conforming to statutory requirements or fairness, but authority may initiate fresh proceedings without excusing compliance obligations of firm
Gauhati High Court
Where petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled due to alleged non-filing of returns without specifying period and revocation was later rejected solely for non-filing of a reply, absence of particulars in show- cause notice and lack of reasons in rejection order violated statutory requirements and natural justice, thus rejection was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded to notice stage for issuance of complete particulars for effective response
Gauhati High Court
Where registration of a rice mill company was cancelled by a non-speaking order based on a show cause notice failing to specify months or relevant period of default, with no reasons recorded for cancellation and without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, such order violated principles of natural justice and thus same was to be held illegal, warranting restoration to show cause notice stage for fresh proceedings in accordance with law