High Court of Gauhati — tax rulings

Gauhati High Court3 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ragini Communication v. Union of India

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 Court3 Sept 2026

For revenue

Ragini Communication v. Union of India

Gauhati High Court3 Aug 2026

For revenue

Gias Uddin Ahmed v. Union of India

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 Court17 Jul 2026

For revenue

North East Petrochemicals v. Union of India

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 Court24 Jun 2026

For assessee

Debabrata Bhowmick v. Union of India

Where assessee's appeal under section 107 against ex-parte order for excess ITC was rejected as time-barred and Tribunal was still non-functional, writ against appellate order was maintainable as filing was within statutory window prescribed under Section 112 and Ministry Notification; alternative remedy would not oust Article 226 jurisdiction. GST: Where assessee’s appeal under section 107 was dismissed as time-barred after prior rectification was pursued in good faith and within statutory limitation, principles of section 14 of Limitation Act applied to exclude period spent on rectification proceedings, making appeal filed within condonable one month; thus, appeal would not be time-barred. GST: Where assessee filed appeal within condonable period after OIO confirming excess ITC, absence of a separate condonation application should not have led to summary dismissal, as statutory scheme and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC contemplated affording at least one opportunity to explain delay; thus, non-adherence would render appellate order unsustainable and required restoration for fresh consideration after giving such opportunity