The court refused bail after noting allegations that employee provident funds were invested in a private financial institution in violation of statutory provisions and government guidelines.
Official Liquidator Vs Kirloskar Institute (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal filed by the Official Liquidator of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (the company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.826/2011 in Company Petition No.166/2001. The Company Court had dismissed the application filed by […]
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A after the Managing Director admitted availing ITC on blocked invoices during inspection. The Court ruled that such admission weakened the taxpayer’s challenge to the department’s action.
The High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal despite delay after noting that the assessment order was served through deemed service on the common portal. The appeal must be filed with a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
The Gauhati High Court held that the second FIR disclosed additional and distinct offences beyond the earlier complaint. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed under the test of sameness.
The Madras High Court quashed the rejection of a condonation application, holding that the delay in filing Form 10B had a reasonable explanation. The Court directed reconsideration of exemption under Section 11.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST order passed after the assessee failed to reply to a show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The court allowed reconsideration subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax.
The High Court held that there was no violation of natural justice because the taxpayer’s reply to the show cause notice was referred to and considered in the assessment order. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding ₹2 lakh should first be examined under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
The Court refused to review its earlier ruling that retrospective GST cancellation was invalid due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice and absence of prior notice to the taxpayer.
