The Court held that the assessment and consequential demand could not stand where the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and offered a bona fide explanation. The matter was remanded to the notice stage for fresh consideration.
Non-maintenance of minimum balance by customers did not generate taxable consideration and, therefore, no service tax/GST, interest or penalty could be levied. Revenue was also bound by its earlier acceptance of an identical adjudication order in favour of another bank.
The Karnataka High Court held that the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory in every case. It quashed the stay rejection orders and directed disposal of the appeals without insisting on the pre-deposit.
The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were completed without the petitioner’s participation. The matter was restored to the stage of the Section 148A(b) notice for a fresh response.
The Karnataka High Court held that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is mandatory and cannot be waived without statutory authority. It set aside the Single Judge’s directions permitting waiver of interest, penalty, and limitation.
The Karnataka High Court held that Input Tax Credit could not be denied merely because GSTR-2A did not reflect imports and SEZ procurements during FY 2018-19. It quashed the ITC demand and remanded the remaining GST issues for fresh adjudication.
The Karnataka High Court held that filing a revision petition under Section 264 established the assessee’s knowledge of the tax demand. It upheld the refusal to condone the delay of about eight years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the respondents satisfied the definition of person resident in India under Section 2(v) of FEMA. It consequently affirmed the setting aside of penalties and confiscation imposed by the Enforcement Directorate.
The High Court observed that investigation had concluded, charge sheets had been filed, and proceedings were stalled due to stays against other accused. In these circumstances, it granted regular bail with specified conditions.
The Karnataka High Court directed removal of encroachments from the road margin and civic amenity site after holding that the land claimant had no established right over the property. The Court dismissed the challenge to the survey and ordered action within eight weeks.
