HC held that impugned amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules, as amended vide Para 8 of Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST
Karnataka High Court held the charger which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set and accordingly taxable at 5% as covered under entry 53 of Schedule III of KVAT Act.
Held that, the issuance of vouchers is similar to pre-deposit instruments, which have no inherent value of their own and therefore, it does not fall under the category of supply of goods or services. Hence, vouchers being neither goods nor services, are exempted from the levy of tax.
Karnataka High Court held that amendment to Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) can be done only by the Central Government and not by DGFT. Whereas, amendment to the procedure can be done by DGFT.
HC held that, pay roll related services outsourced to foreign company would be treated as business income earned by foreign company and not a technical service therefore, would not be liable for TDS
State of Karnataka Vs Hemanth Motors (Karnataka High Court) Learned AGA appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued and contended that unloading was not done until 5.00 p.m. on the next day and therefore, the goods cannot be transported without seeking extension of validity period of E-way bill. The learned AGA would further contend that […]
Karnataka High Court held that in absence of any willful default on the part of the company, authorized signatory (vice-president) cannot be hauled into the web of crime for an offence under section 409 of the IPC.
Karnataka High Court held that cancellation of contract by State just before delivery of final product is violation of contract and accordingly writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a State or its instrumentality for the same is maintainable.
PCIT Vs Sriram Chita Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that bid loss claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed merely because a different treatment was given in the books of accounts. Entries in the books of accounts are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the […]
The material on record discloses that undisputedly, the respondents encashed the bank guarantees of the petitioner on 23.09.2019 and the same was retained and was lying with them from that date onwards up to 05.01.2022 when the said sum of Rs.4,73,26,512/- was refunded back to the petitioner.
