The High Court set aside a GST demand raised without a personal hearing and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, noting that the validity of limitation-extension notifications is pending before the Supreme Court.
The High Court set aside dismissal of a GST appeal after finding that an extended limitation notification was overlooked. The key takeaway is that appeals filed within the notified window cannot be rejected as time-barred.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions based solely on unsigned loose sheets seized during search. In absence of independent corroborative evidence, such documents were held to have no evidentiary value.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
The court examined whether a liquidation recovery application was time-barred. It held that statutory limitation under company law cannot be extended by judicial interpretation.
The Court held that professional legal work does not convert a residential connection into commercial use. The excess demand raised was ordered to be refunded.
The Court set aside the refund rejection holding that software services exported to a foreign parent cannot be treated as intermediary services. The ruling directs release of the denied GST refund with interest.
The High Court held that writ petitions cannot be entertained against a private finance company. Disputes arising from private loan transactions must be resolved through civil or arbitral remedies.
The High Court held that a service provider engaged in export of services was not an intermediary and quashed rejection of accumulated ITC refund, directing refund with interest.
The authority rejected the refund citing non-submission of LUT before export. The court found that the clarification allowing ex post facto LUT was ignored and ordered reconsideration.
