The Court remanded an ex-parte GST demand order after the petitioner could not respond due to a parent’s serious illness. This case underlines that unavoidable circumstances can merit reconsideration of tax proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger invoking rule 86A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without granting pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is impermissible. Accordingly, order is quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking provisions of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] is illegal and arbitrary since reasons to believe was not provided which is mandatory requirement for invoking Rule 86A.
The Court set aside the show cause notice, Order-in-Original, and Order-in-Appeal after holding that the assessee must be given an opportunity to file a fresh reply. The matter was remitted for reconsideration from the SCN-reply stage.
Karnataka High Court allowed a 36-day delay in filing income tax returns, citing system failure and unavoidable circumstances as sufficient cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b).
The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Karnataka High Court held that passing of multiple adjudication orders under section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [GST Act] for single tax period is impermissible in law and hence quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand after accepting that business closure caused non-response to notices. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to reply.
Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order and remitted the matter to the revenue for reconsideration. The period until the Supreme Court’s decision is excluded for limitation purposes. The ruling underscores adherence to due process in tax adjudication.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
