Gauhati High Court rules orders under AGST Act Section 73(9) invalid due to lack of a proper show cause notice, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures.
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
Gauhati High Court grants interim bail in a GST evasion case involving ₹10.29 crore. The court emphasized the judicious use of arrest powers under CGST Act.
Gauhati High Court held that claim of inspector in central excise of committing illegality in allocation of zone after one year from date of final order is time barred as per section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the Assessment Order filed an appeal before the Commissioner’s Office and it is submitted that the appeal is presently pending but no effective order has been passed thereon.
The Court further observes and directs that in the eventuality the amount lying in the frozen accounts mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 09.04.2024 are not equivalent amount requisite for the pre-deposit in terms with Section 107(6)(b) of the Act of 2017.
Guwahati High Court held that since the Average Annual Financial Turnover cannot be said to be the same as an Income Tax Return, non-submission of income tax returns as required duly disqualifies the petitioner’s tender bid.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction and development works. The petitioner performed various contracts under the respondent No. 2. In respect to those works, though the petitioner had received the contractual amount after deduction of tax.
There was no deliberate intention on the part of assessee not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty and as such it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the manner indicated in proviso to section 11A.
Gauhati High Court held that gravity of charge against CIT(A) has been diluted when the ITAT has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Thus, memorandum of charge issued against CIT(A) is liable to be interfered.
