The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ after the authorities rejected the refund application filed by the Official Liquidator instead of the exporter. Liberty was granted to seek refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The High Court set aside the assessment order after noting that it was passed ex parte and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings with an opportunity for the assessee to file a return.
The Karnataka High Court set aside orders rejecting TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 credit claims after noting that relevant documents were not examined earlier. The matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny by the adjudicating authority.
Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Vigneshwara Transport Company (Karnataka High Court) SCN u/s 74 GST Valid even if based on Material from allegedly Illegal Search or from another Commissionerate-Karnataka HC The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings u/s 74 of the CGST Act are independent adjudicatory proceedings & are not dependent on validity of […]
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
The High Court set aside an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer. It held that once the department knows of the death, proceedings must continue only against the legal heirs.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to prohibit Kambala in areas like Bengaluru, noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the legality of state amendments allowing such traditional sports.
Karnataka High Court held that the rent received by leasing out residential premises for the purpose of students, staff and teachers would not be exigible / amenable to GST. Accordingly, order is set aside and present petition is allowed.
The High Court held that provisional attachment of fixed deposits cannot be ordered without recording proper reasons and satisfaction based on tangible material. Since the orders were cryptic and lacked justification, they were set aside.
