The Court set aside a show cause notice that combined several financial years into one proceeding. It held that each assessment year must be treated separately under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that each financial year creates a separate cause of action, making a consolidated notice legally unsustainable. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh year-wise proceedings.
The ruling found that issuing a single notice for multiple tax years violates statutory requirements. The Court quashed the notice and permitted authorities to issue separate notices for each year.
The Court emphasized the need for fair opportunity before finalizing tax demands. The petitioner was allowed to respond to the show-cause notice in fresh proceedings.
The court set aside an ex-parte adjudication order where no reply was filed to the show-cause notice due to a bona fide lapse. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that the matter was already settled by an earlier decision on identical facts. It extended the same relief, emphasizing consistency in judicial rulings.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
The Court held that input tax credit can be claimed regardless of the month of purchase. It ruled that the amendment to Section 10(3) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively.
Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court held that the present case was identical to an earlier ruling and could not be distinguished. It disposed of the appeal in line with the prior judgment, ensuring consistency in decisions.
