HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment for Alleged GST Component in Bogus Purchases:

HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment for Alleged GST Component in Bogus Purchases

Reopening under Sections 148A and 148 struck down as AO travelled beyond show-cause notice

HC Quashes Income Tax Reopening Over GST on Alleged Bogus Purchases

authorMeetu KumaridateFeb 7, 2026
Last update on Feb 7, 2026
HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment for Alleged GST Component in Bogus Purchases The petitioner, Guruvayur Infratech Private Limited, engaged in civil construction, had made cement purchases during FY 2020–21 from two suppliers, M/s Dhairya Enterprise and M/s Shree Enterprise. A survey by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence revealed that these entities were involved in bogus billing. Without contesting the matter, the petitioner reversed the Input Tax Credit and paid GST along with interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 5.13 crore. In its income-tax return for AY 2021–22, the petitioner declared income of Rs. 28.63 crore, which was later assessed under Section 143(3) after detailed scrutiny, including examination of purchases from non-filers. The Assessing Officer later issued a notice under Section 148A(1) alleging bogus purchases of Rs. 14.07 crore. The AO passed an order alleging, for the first time, that Rs. 3.67 crore representing GST expenditure had escaped assessment, followed by issuance of notice under Section 148.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
Main Issue: Whether reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the Assessing Officer introduced a new basis of alleged escapement in the Section 148A(3) order, beyond the scope of the original show-cause notice, despite the issue having been examined earlier in scrutiny assessment. HC Decided: The Hon'ble High Court held that the AO acted beyond jurisdiction by shifting the basis of reopening from bogus purchases of Rs. 14.07 crore to an alleged GST component of Rs. 3.67 crore without putting the petitioner to notice. The Court found that the petitioner had already written off the disputed amount as bad debt, added it back to income, and separately paid GST, interest, and penalty following the DGGI survey.
Sales Tax Bar Urges FM to Reduce High GSTAT Appeal Fees; Highlights Burden on MSMEs and Small Traders
The Court concluded that no income had escaped assessment and that the reopening amounted to a change of opinion on an issue already scrutinised under Section 143(3). Thus, the impugned order under Section 148A(3) and notice under Section 148 were quashed. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2166
Up Next

Loading suggestions…