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...

S.69 CGST Act | Commissioner Must Specify Necessity Of Arrest In Addition To 'Reasons To Believe' That Assessee Committed Offence: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, which confers power to arrest on a Commissioner under the Act, requires the authority to not only record 'reasons to believe' that an assessee committed the specified offence but also specify the necessity to arrest.While dealing with a writ petition challenging Petitioner's arrest, Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “The requirement under Sub-section (1) of Section 69 is to have “reasons to believe”...

S.73 CGST Act | SCN, Order Issued Without Signature Of Proper Officer Is 'Ineffective': Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati HIgh Court has held that the Show Cause Notice issued to an assessee under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Statement issued along with the SCN as well as an Order passed under Section 73(9) must mandatorily be signed by the Proper Officer.Justice Soumitra Saikia observed, “As it is the statutory mandate that it is only the Proper Officer who has the authority to issue Show Cause Notice and the Statement and pass the order, the authentication in the...

S.68 IT Act | Whether Assessee Discharged Burden To Substantiate Identity & Genuineness Of Share Application Money Is 'Question Of Fact', Not Law: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court refused to entertain an appeal with respect to genuineness of credit received by an assessee from share application money, holding that the same would require it to venture into factual matrix of the case which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was preferred by the Revenue, following CIT(A) reversing the additions made by it on the strength of alleged share application money received by the Assessee. Its second...

Summary Of SCN In GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement For Issuance Of SCN U/S 73(1) Of CSGT Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court stated that issuance of summary of Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 cannot substitute requirement for issuance of show cause notice under section 73(1) of CSGT Act. The Bench of Justice Manish Choudhury observed that “…….the issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as passing of the Order as per the...

Notice U/S 148A(b) Flagging Bogus Transactions Cannot Be Faulted For Merely Mentioning Sale Entry As That Of Purchase: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a challenge to an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deeming the Petitioners' case fit for issuance of notice for escapement of income assessment under Section 148. In doing so, it held that the order cannot be faulted merely because the alleged bogus transactions, whose existence the Petitioners (X and Y) did not deny in their reply, were perceived to be that of sale instead of purchase. Justice Devashis Baruah observed, ...

Income Tax Return Is Different From Average Annual Financial Turnover Document: Gauhati High Court Explains

The Gauhati High Court has held that the words “Turnover” and “Income Tax Return” are different and exemption to a bidder from submitting the former in a tender process would not exempt it from furnishing the ITR, for the prescribed years. “The primary purpose of reporting Annual Turnover is to provide a clear picture of a company's revenue-generating capacity. It is often a critical criterion for assessing a bidder's financial strength in tender applications. An Income Tax Return...

TDS Deposited In Wrong PAN By Employer: Gauhati HC Denies Interest U/S 244A Of IT Act, Says It Applies Only When Refund Is Delayed By Dept

The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that interest on refund under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies only to those cases where refund is delayed by the Income Tax Department. Justice Devashis Baruah thus declined interest to a construction contractor, whose TDS was deposited in the wrong PAN number by the Defence Ministry's Border Roads Organisation. The bench also noted that even if the amount was deposited in the correct PAN number, Petitioner was not entitled to...

If Dispute Is Arbitrable, Court Cannot Refuse To Refer Parties To Arbitration U/S 8 Of Arbitration Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court Bench of Justice Mr. Robin Phukan held that it is also well settled that reference of case to arbitral tribunal under section 8 of Arbitration Act can be declined by the court only if the dispute is non-arbitrable. Brief Facts This appeal, under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is directed against the order dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh. It is to be noted here that vide...