Karnataka High Court quashes Sec 148A(d), Sec 148 notice and ex-parte assessment due to non-receipt of Sec 148A(b) notice; remands for fresh reply, keeps all issues open.
Karnataka High Court sets aside Sec 154 rectification, remands Sec 54 exemption claim for fresh review; validity of Sec 154 left open, assessee to appear before AO without notice.
The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be taxed twice and set aside the addition subject to verification.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be restricted to the month of invoice when business practices require later accounting. It ruled that such restriction defeats the objective of avoiding cascading taxation.
The Court held that input tax credit claimed on invoices from non-existent dealers justified penalty under VAT law. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies on the assessee and cannot shift to the Revenue.
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.
