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 ...

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 […]...

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 […]...

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...

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 […...

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....

 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....

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 […]...

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...

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...