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 […]
Mr. Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Though several contentions have been raised with reference to initiation of the action under the GST Act and CST Act, since the scope of these petitions is limited only to consider the bail applications, the other points which have been raised are not […]
SARFAESI Act provides only secured creditors to initiate action against the borrower and a demand made by a person or legal entity who was not the secured creditor was definitely prejudicial to the interest of assessee.
Kalebudde Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) When the appeal is pending against the main order, the petitioner could not have filed writ petition for release of goods which are subject matter of appeal. Section 129 and 130 of the Act provides for release of goods on payment of fine. Accordingly, the writ […]
M/s Onyx Designs Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: In absence of any other allegations made against the purchasing dealer in the assessment orders, merely for the reason that selling dealers had not deposited the collected tax amount or some of the selling dealers had been subsequently deregistered could not […]
Reopening of assessment on basis of withdrawal of deduction allowed under Section 10A relating to the assessment year 2007-08 was without application of mind and nothing but the change of opinion, which tantamounted to review and the same was not permissible to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148.
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 […]
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, the order could not be sustained.
Sri Deepak Dhanaraj Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) In this case AO has not whispered about the revised return filed by the assessee except observing that the returns filed by the assessee were invalidated being defective returns. If that being the position, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner under section 139(9) of the Act […]
Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Section 278AA makes it clear that in order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to […]
