Karnataka High Court held that mere change in route, without intention to evade tax, cannot attract penalty under section 129 of the KGST Act. Accordingly, order passed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and hence petition is allowed.
The dispute involved ITC denial due to mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The Court quashed the orders and held that authorities must apply Circular 183 and re-decide the case.
Karnataka High Court held that revision petition u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act wrongly dismissed by holing that delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned since the revisional authority already condoned the delay.
Karnataka High Court held that bona fide error made while filing return in Form GSTR3B are allowed to be corrected. Further, it is held that such bona fide errors cannot be sole ground for initiating proceedings u/s. 73 of the GST Act.
The court held that delay in seeking a TDS refund could be condoned where tax was deducted due to an error, and directed authorities to examine the refund claim on merits.
The High Court held that inter-State supplies remain taxable under IGST where goods are delivered outside the State. Contractual clauses on transfer of title cannot override Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act.
Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
Karnataka High Court held that order invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and blocking of Electronic Credit ledger without granting pre-decisional hearing and passing of order without containing independent or cogent reasons is impermissible in law. Accordingly, order quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that non-filling of registration number in Part-B in e-way bill is curable defect and the same would not invalidate or render illegal the e-way bill. Accordingly, levy of penalty u/s. 129 of the KGST Act is not tenable in law.
The High Court held that amended SEZ Rules and a later circular could not be applied retrospectively to confirm GST demand for 2017–18, rendering the order without jurisdiction.
