The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment after the Assessing Officer received information linking the assessee to alleged accommodation entries. The Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment based on information received from the Kolkata Investigation Wing regarding alleged shell companies. The Court held that such information provided tangible material for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment.
Gujarat High Court observed that additions in bogus purchase cases should be confined to the income component embedded in such transactions rather than the entire purchase amount.
The Gujarat High Court set aside GST detention proceedings after finding that the final order was passed beyond the mandatory seven-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The ruling reiterates that statutory timelines in detention cases must be strictly followed.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanically on limitation grounds. The Court ruled that appellate authorities must examine whether sufficient cause for delay has been properly explained.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment notices issued after scrutiny assessment were invalid because the Assessing Officer had already examined the Section 50C valuation issue during original proceedings. The Court ruled that reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
The Gujarat High Court set aside a Section 148 notice after finding no direct or indirect connection between the assessee and the seized third-party documents. The Court held that reassessment based on vague material and assumptions was unsustainable.
The Gujarat High Court held that arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was valid as the petitioner had been supplied with the “reasons to believe” and grounds of arrest. The Court ruled that verbatim signed copies were not mandatory.
The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was recovered. The reassessment notices were set aside for lack of nexus.
The Court held that a document dated 2017 could not reasonably be linked to a land transaction executed in 2021 without supporting evidence. The absence of a live nexus rendered the reassessment invalid.
