Karnataka High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. is exercisable only in exceptional circumstances. Thus, interim bail stands rejected since present matter cannot be termed as exceptional.
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The High Court quashed an ex parte GST adjudication passed without personal hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after the Supreme Court decides the pending challenge to limitation-extension notifications.
The High Court held that a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is illegal and without jurisdiction. All proceedings based on such a composite notice were quashed.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority after introduction of the faceless scheme. All notices, assessment orders, and demands were set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
The High Court set aside a GST demand raised without a personal hearing and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, noting that the validity of limitation-extension notifications is pending before the Supreme Court.
The High Court set aside dismissal of a GST appeal after finding that an extended limitation notification was overlooked. The key takeaway is that appeals filed within the notified window cannot be rejected as time-barred.
The High Court upheld deletion of additions based solely on unsigned loose sheets seized during search. In absence of independent corroborative evidence, such documents were held to have no evidentiary value.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
The court examined whether a liquidation recovery application was time-barred. It held that statutory limitation under company law cannot be extended by judicial interpretation.
