Gauhati High Court Directs Refund Of Cess Paid Under Mistake Of Law By Oil India And ONGC

The Gauhati High Court on 27 August held that the Central Excise Department cannot retain Education Cess (EC) and Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) paid under a mistake of law merely because the refund claim was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. A Division Bench comprising Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Anjan Moni Kalita dismissed appeals filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Dibrugarh, in matters concerning Oil India Limited and Oil and Natural Gas...

Income Tax Prosecution Cannot Survive Once Assessment Is Set Aside On Merits: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 2 September held that an income tax prosecution cannot continue when the assessment on which it is based has been set aside on merits, and that separate complaints against company directors for the same alleged offence are not maintainable when the company itself has not been arraigned as an accused. Justice Robin Phukan allowed three petitions filed by Flamingo Breweries Private Limited and its two directors and quashed the criminal complaints pending before the...

Consolidated GST Notice For Multiple Years Valid, But Liability Must Be Decided Separately: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that while the GST department can issue a consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years, it must determine the tax liability separately for each year and apply the provision applicable to that period.“The authorities are therefore required to determine the liability separately for each financial year, apply the provision applicable to that year, and examine the question of limitation and the ingredients necessary for invoking the respective...

Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had...

GST Officers Cannot Keep Tax Consultant's Office Sealed After Search Ends: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 10 August held that GST authorities cannot keep business premises sealed after completing a search when the owner had not denied them access. Justice Devashis Baruah directed the Assam GST Department to de-seal the office of Sri Surendra Sharma, a tax consultant operating under the name Sharma and Associates in Bokajan, Assam. The Bench held: “...the goods mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of Prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 can under no circumstances be said to be...

MSME Supplier's Interest Claim Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Principal Dues Are Paid: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has recently ruled that an MSME supplier's claim for statutory interest on delayed payments cannot be disregarded merely because the principal contractual amount has subsequently been paid.Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “Section 17 of the MSMED Act expressly makes the buyer liable to pay the amount due together with interest thereon as provided under Section 16. Therefore, subject to verification of the relevant dates of acceptance/deemed acceptance and the period of...

Gauhati High Court Says How GST Proceedings Are to Be Initiated Can't Be Decided in Writ Petition

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to decide whether GST proceedings should be initiated under the normal recovery provisions or the fraud-related provisions of the CGST Act, as that issue requires factual adjudication by the proper officer.Single Judge Justice Devashis Baruah observed that whether a taxpayer committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax can only be determined after examining the facts and, therefore,...

Word 'Demand' Not Mandatory In Cheque Dishonour Notice, 'Advice' Can Suffice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which deals with cheque dishonour) need not expressly use the word “demand” if the notice, read as a whole, clearly communicates the requirement to pay the dishonoured cheque amount. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Protima Dutta Kalita and upheld her conviction, holding that a notice using the word “advice” instead of “demand” can...

Gauhati High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment After AO Cites 'Paucity of Time' For Not Verifying Transactions

The Gauhati High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated under Income Tax Act, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment without first verifying the petitioner's transactions. Referring to the AO's own recorded reasons that beneficiary-wise transactions could not be identified "due to paucity of time", Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair held, "The recording of reason by the Assessing Officer in paragraph 5 of being unable to carry out investigation for identifying...

Gauhati High Court Rejects Hawkins Cookers' Plea To Compute VAT On Reduced Sale Price

The Gauhati High Court has held that Hawkins Cookers Ltd. must pay the balance 8.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) on the original sale price of pressure cookers after an earlier ruling held that the products attracted VAT at 12.5% before 2010 and not 4% as claimed by the company. Dismissing six revision petitions, the court rejected Hawkins' contention that the original sale consideration should be treated as inclusive of 12.5% VAT while computing the additional tax liabilityThe controversy was...

Interim Order Directing Release Of Award Amount Not Appealable Under S. 37, Arbitration Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently observed that an order directing the release of a deposited award amount during the pendency of a Section 34 challenge cannot be appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench of Justice Robin Phukan held an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an interim order directing the release of the award amount to a landowner to be non-maintainable. The court held, “The upshot of aforesaid discussion...

Are ED's 'Reasons To Believe' For Provisional Attachment Confidential? Gauhati High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

The Gauhati High Court has recently referred to a larger bench the question of whether the Enforcement Directorate's recorded "reasons to believe" are confidential or can be incorporated into a provisional attachment order. The reference follows a single judge's disagreement with an earlier coordinate bench that had taken a contrary view.Justice Manish Choudhury observed that his view that it is not confidential differed from the earlier coordinate bench ruling in Aftabuddin Ahmed v. Enforcement...