Mudit Saxena Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Banks Can Not Initiate Recovery of Loan From Homebuyers For Non-Payment of EMI Due to Default on the part of the Builder/Developer (Karnataka High Court): RERA In a significant order, Karnataka High Court prohibits Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) from using coercive means to […]
Karnataka High Court directed restoration of GST registration as non-payment of GST and non-filing of GST return, on account of bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause du;u accepted
Karnataka High Court held that the expenses incurred towards stamp duty in connection with issue for public subscription of shares or debentures of the company is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court held that contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act doesn’t make the entire transaction of loan void. Non-payment of the same held guilty of commission of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
HC held that wife cannot be made accused for dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same.
Karnataka High Court held that petitioner had made out valid and sufficient ground/cause to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate Authority. Accordingly, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the condonation of delay was granted.
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court) In the usual course if the assessee knocks the doors of the Writ Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act, no exception can be found with the Writ Court in rejecting the writ petition as not maintainable, but […]
HC directed GST Department to restore cancelled GST registration as Petitioner could not file GST returns due to sudden demise of auditor
The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value.
Karnataka High Court held that Open Purchase Orders are only standing offers and do not constitute a confirmed ‘Agreement to sell’ and movement of goods are mere stock transfers.
