Karnataka HC directed the State to determine and reimburse differential GST arising from GST implementation on works contracts, subject to verification.
Karnataka HC remanded a GST reimbursement claim, holding contractors must prove incremental GST payment with documents, while GST authority certification is unnecessary.
Karnataka HC refused to quash IPC and ED proceedings, holding that disputed facts require trial and Section 482 CrPC cannot be used for a mini-trial.
Karnataka High Court held that reopening a completed scrutiny assessment without fresh tangible material is impermissible as it amounts to a change of opinion.
Karnataka High Court held that Section 14A disallowance must be based on actual expenditure and remanded the matter for fresh computation.
The Karnataka High Court held that where the Revenue had consistently accepted the same interest rate in earlier and subsequent assessment years, it could not adopt a different approach for a single year without justification. The appeal challenging the ITAT’s order was dismissed.
Karnataka HC held excess electricity use alone cannot establish clandestine manufacture or excise evasion without reliable corroborative evidence.
Karnataka HC held GST liability must be determined under statute, not contract. Directions against GST authorities to pay contractor’s tax dues were set aside.
Karnataka HC held that a Section 148A(b) notice granting less than seven days for compliance is invalid, making all consequential proceedings unsustainable.
Karnataka HC held that the use of ‘may made the GST Amnesty timeline directory, requiring reconsideration of a delayed declaration request.
