The Gauhati High Court held that a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act. The GST demand order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner could pursue all grounds before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act. Since the statutory remedy remained available, the writ petition was not entertained.
The Court ruled that furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the alleged short-paid GST amount was adequate for interim release of the consignment. DGGI’s plea to include the penalty component in the guarantee amount was rejected.
The Gauhati High Court permitted impleadment of CBIC and customs officials in a pending writ petition after finding them necessary and proper parties. The Court held their presence was required for effective adjudication of the issues involved.
Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in FORM GST REG-19 was illegal and violated statutory requirements. The Court restored the matter and granted the taxpayer fresh opportunity to respond.
Works contracts for government buildings and educational institutions remain a highly litigated area therefore, merely relying upon Form 26AS data and illegal invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not justified.
Gauhati High Court held that proceedings initiated through a time-barred show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act were without jurisdiction. The adjudication order was consequently quashed.
The Gauhati High Court directed de-freezing of bank accounts after the ITAT remanded the income tax appeals for fresh consideration. The Court held that continued freezing during pending appeals was not justified.
The Court noted that the taxpayer could not upload large volumes of documents due to technical limits. It held that authorities should adopt a practical and humane approach, including on-site verification. Failure to do so vitiates proceedings.
High Court held that receipts reflected in Form 26AS cannot automatically be treated as taxable services. Tax liability must first be established under the charging provisions of law after examining the nature of the receipts.
