The Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without specifying a date and time for a personal hearing. The cancellation order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Karnataka High Court held that passing of multiple adjudication orders under section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [GST Act] for single tax period is impermissible in law and hence quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand after accepting that business closure caused non-response to notices. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to reply.
Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order and remitted the matter to the revenue for reconsideration. The period until the Supreme Court’s decision is excluded for limitation purposes. The ruling underscores adherence to due process in tax adjudication.
Karnataka High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings has been initiated is bad-in-law. Accordingly, question is answered in favour of respondent/assessee.
Court rules partial co-ownership of property constitutes ownership under Section 54F, disallowing exemptions claimed on reinvested capital gains. Tribunal’s earlier allowance set aside.
The Court quashed multiple notices and assessment orders for AY 2018-19, holding that procedural requirements under Section 151A were not met, while preserving Revenue’s right to revive proceedings.
The Court held that the show cause notice provided less than seven days to respond, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The assessment and related notices were set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding the confirmed amount exceeded the sum proposed in the show-cause notice, holding the order violative of Section 75(7). The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
