CGST Act | Gauhati High Court Reads Down S.16(2)(aa); Says ITC Can't Be Denied To Bona Fide Buyer For Supplier's Default

The Gauhati High Court has held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser merely because the supplier failed to upload invoice details in Form GSTR-1, and has read down Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act and AGST Act to protect genuine taxpayers. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury disposed of a writ petition filed by the assessee, M/s McLeod Russel India Limited, holding that while the provision itself is...

CGST Rules | GST Registration Can Be Restored After Expiry Of Revocation Period If Rule 22(4) Conditions Are Fulfilled: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that GST Registration can be restored even after expiry of the revocation period if the assessee complies with Rule 22(4) CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax Rules), 2017 requirements. The Single Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, opined that if the assessee submits such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22(4) of CGST Rules, 2017, the concerned authority shall consider the application...

Gauhati High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Passing Fake Input-Tax Credit Worth ₹199.31 Crores

The Gauhati High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused of passing fake ITC worth Rs. 199.31 crores, which was passed to 58 firms across 11 States using fabricated invoices totalling Rs. 658.88 Crores. Justice Kardak Ete was dealing with the case where the accused persons, led by Ashutosh Kumar Jha, had created a fictitious firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, using forged documents, including a fake seal of JMFC Changlang, Aadhaar, PAN Card, and electricity bills. ...

Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹19.5 Crore GST Notice Against PepsiCo

The Gauhati High Court recently quashed a ₹19.5 crore show cause notice (SCN) issued to food and beverage giant PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. under the CGST Act, ruling that the GST department failed to comply with the mandatory process of return scrutiny before initiating tax demand proceedings.In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, a single bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia observed that the SCN could not have been issued without providing PepsiCo an opportunity to explain its...

Merely Attaching Tax Determination Statement To DRC-01 Summary Cannot Be Treated As A Valid SCN: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court held that merely attaching tax determination statement to Drc-01 summary cannot be treated as a valid show cause notice. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi stated that “…….a formal and duly authenticated SCN is mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 73. The Statement of tax determination under Section 73(3), which is attached to the summary cannot be treated as a valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in...

Restoration Of Cancelled GST Registration Permissible If Taxpayer Clears Dues And Files Returns: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that the restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that “proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules 2017 provides that if a person, who has been served with a show cause notice under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is ready and willing to furnish all the pending returns and to make full payment of the tax itself along with...

Right To Appoint Arbitrator Is Not Automatically Forfeited After Expiry Of 30 Days From Date Of Demand Made By Other Party: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer has held that if an arbitrator is not appointed within 30 days of the demand by the other party, the right to appoint is not automatically forfeited. However, such appointment must be made after the 30-day period but before the other party files an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. This is a petition under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an ...

S.10(26) IT Act | Gauhati HC Upholds Refund Of Income Tax Deducted From Scheduled Tribe Officer's Salary, Says He Was Entitled To Exemption

The Gauhati High Court has upheld a single-bench decision asking the Central government to refund the income tax deducted from the salary of a BSF Assistant Commandant belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community.A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed the direction in view of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prescribes tax exemption to members of recognised Scheduled Tribe communities posted in specified areas.It observed, “It...

Retracted Statement Can't Be Termed As Incriminating Material, No Addition Can Be Made In Respect Of Completed Assessment: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material and no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT were of the view that the said piece of evidence, i.e. retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material, noted the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami. In this case, the assessee/respondent submitted Income Tax Returns...

Carbonated Fruit Drinks Qualify As Fruit Beverages, Taxable At 12% GST: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that carbonated fruit drinks qualify as fruit beverages and are taxable at 12% GST. The Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia opined that “where the subject product contains soluble solids and fruit content as per the report of the State Food Laboratory, it cannot be said to be akin to water, mineral water or aerated water. Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. The ...

Rule 36(4) Of CGST Rules Is Constitutionally Valid, Does Not Derive Power From Section 43A: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The provision stipulates documentary requirements and conditions for a registered person claiming input tax credit (ITC).A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that the provision was enacted based on powers derived from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under...

Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Oust Jurisdiction Of Civil Court To Entertain Suit: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Malasri Nandi has held that merely because there is an arbitration clause providing for referring the dispute and the claim to the arbitration, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred but the same is subject to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Brief Facts An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants under which the defendants undertook to construct flats for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the...