Karnataka High Court

Revision of declaration in FORM GST TRAN- 1 can be made once: HC

Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The Rule 120A provides for revision of declaration. In the event of the registered person who had submitted a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1, intends to revise such declaration once, this provision can be invoked. This provision makes it clear that ...

Read More

Show cause notice is sine qua non to proceed with recovery under GST

LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

LC Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Section 73 of the Chapter XV of the Act – contemplates that where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised […]...

Read More

ITC cannot be claimed by mere filing of VAT Form 240 without filing of return

MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)

MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Return is the basis on which the computation of tax liability has to be made including the input tax credit in terms of Section 10[3] and Section 10[4] of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is not in dispute that no […]...

Read More

Tax on consumption of Electricity by person generating electricity is valid: HC

Harekrishna Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court)

Harekrishna Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Section 4[3] of the Karnataka Electricity [Taxation on Consumption] [Amendment] Act, 2013 deals with the payment of tax. In terms of sub-section [3] of Section 4, the incidence of tax is on the consumption. The consumption of electricity relates to every person g...

Read More

Karnataka HC explains disqualification of directors | Section 164(2)

Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court)

Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […...

Read More

Financial stringency not justify non-remittance of TDS – Penalty Justified

KBR Infratch Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)

Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence....

Read More

No immunity to companies from prosecution for offences for which punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment

Dr. Viloo Patell Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

 We hold that there is no immunity to the companies from prosecution merely because the prosecution is in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment....

Read More

Unutilized amount in Capital Gain A/c can be withdrawn post Tax deduction

Prof. P. N. Shetty Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)

Prof. P. N. Shetty Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) If only a part of the amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is utilized for the construction or purchase of a new asset within the specified time, income tax is chargeable on the unutilized amount. That is why the learned Single Judge, by the […]...

Read More

Validity of trust deed for stamp duty cannot be determined by DC: HC

Sri B R Jagadhish Vs District Registrar & Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (Karnataka High Court)

Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (DC) erroneously directed assessee to pay stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Stamp Act without properly examining the recitals of the document where the relationship of the donor and the donee was clearly mentioned and without looking into the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act, therefore, th...

Read More

Mistake by CA in filing Form 240 not attracts Section 69[1] of VAT Act: Karnataka HC

Fresh and Honest Cafe Limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

In a recent case of M/s. Fresh and Honest Cafe LTD. V. The Deputy Commissioner [Ct] and Anr. (Karnataka High Court) , a ruling was stated by Justice S. Sujatha (Karnataka High Court) that stats that any mistake said to have been committed by a learned CA in filing VAT Form 240 will not be seen as an intentional mistake and further not lev...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,438)
Company Law (5,279)
Custom Duty (7,557)
DGFT (4,090)
Excise Duty (4,315)
Fema / RBI (3,942)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,600)
SEBI (3,295)
Service Tax (3,505)