Reimbursement of interim payments from insured banks in priority to other liabilities was a valid exercise of legislative competence. The argument that the DICGC, being an insurer, was limited to the rights of subrogation and could not rank higher than the insured depositors was rejected.
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Karnataka High Court quashed ex-parte GST adjudication orders after the taxpayer claimed it could explain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The matters were remanded back for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity to reply.
The Karnataka High Court Full Bench ruled that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely because the Assessing Officer changes his opinion on the same material. The Court reaffirmed that reassessment requires tangible material showing escapement of income.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order after finding that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice. It remitted the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity to present evidence.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The case involved denial of input tax credit solely due to return mismatch without examining records. The Court held that such mechanical reliance is invalid and ordered fresh adjudication.
The Court examined inclusion in a rowdy register without supporting material and found no criminal cases or evidence. It held that such listing is unlawful without tangible proof and ordered deletion of the entry.
The court held that Sections 73 and 74 allow show cause notices for any period, not limited to a financial year. Consolidated notices are valid, subject to limitation checks for each period.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings must be initiated within the statutory time limit. It found the notice issued after the deadline to be invalid.
