FCI OEN Connectors Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) The limited point that arises for consideration is, whether the respondents were justified in encashing the bank guarantee and invoking the continuity bonds before expiry of the statutory appeal period of 60 days from the date of the order dated 10.03.2021. As rightly contended […]
Where a response was sought by the Assessing Officer to the show cause notice, giving less than 24 hours, it has been held to be arbitrary resulting in palpable injustice. Thus, without going into merits or demerits of the case, it would be suffice in restoring the proceedins to the Assessing Officer to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to file additional reply, annulling the assessment order.
Governor, RBI Vs Velankani Information Systems Limited (Karnataka High Court) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 herein had availed the term loan facilities from respondent Nos.5 to 7. Respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the owner and operator of Five Star Hotel and Technology Park had approached the writ Court […]
Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption […]
It is trite that the deficiencies in the investigation or incorrect demand in the first show cause notice cannot be made good in the second show cause notice and subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time.
G. Satish Kumar Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner has specifically stated that his wife is suffering from liver and brain tumor and was undergoing treatment and consequently, pursuant to the notice dated 09.09.2021 passed under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested granting of 30 days time […]
Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Toyota Kirloskar Motors (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: Since Toyota was an output service provider therefore, it can utilise cenvat credit for payment of service tax on output services. Held: The respondent – M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motors claimed to be manufactures of Multiutility Vehicles (MUV) for passenger cars and parts thereof […]
Union of India Vs Asaid Paints Limited (Karnataka High Court) on a careful consideration of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents in light of the order impugned, we find that the learned single Judge has been persuaded by the judgment passed in Adfert Technologies in coming to the […]
The petitioner is permitted to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today; pursuant to the petitioner filing the said form, respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
V.S. Products Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Legality of levy of NCCD as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 As per Section 136 of the Finance Act, a surcharge by way of duty of excise at the rates specified in the schedule is levied. By virtue of the amendment of the […]
