The Court quashed the adjudication and appellate orders after finding that the prescribed Circular on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A discrepancies was not followed. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Court held that payments received by the assessee could not be treated as professional income because no proof of services rendered was produced. The ruling confirms that absence of evidence justifies treating such receipts as salary.
The Court held that the impugned GST notice and adjudication orders suffered from multiple legal defects and quashed them. Authorities can issue a fresh notice, with limitation suspended for the contested period.
Karnataka High Court held that works contract entered with State and other Government agencies needs to calculate works executed Pre-GST under KVAT regime and Post-GST. Thus, reimbursement/ refund is to be granted for differential tax liability taking into account Pre-GST and Post-GST tax liability.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the show-cause notice was uploaded under an unconventional portal section, preventing the petitioner from responding.
Karnataka High Court held that notification no. 2/2023- Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 31.03.2023 and 3/2023 dated 26.07.2023 directing to pay compensation cess at Maximum Retail Price [MRP] as against transaction value runs counter to the CGST Act. Accordingly, the said notifications are quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued and served without signature of the Assessing Officer is a foundational defect and the same cannot be ignored. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is invalid.
A valid Chartered Accountant certificate was sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the incidence of 4% SAD was not passed on to customers and discharge the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
