The High Court held that a penalty exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice violated statutory limits, setting aside the penalty order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside a GST assessment order as the petitioner was not provided a personal hearing despite filing a reply. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
A GST demand and recovery order was invalidated as the issuing officer acted beyond jurisdiction. The matter is remitted to a new officer for reconsideration. This ensures fair process and proper application of the law.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of second provisional attachment order under section 83(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act passed on the next day after expiry of maximum statutory period of one year is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, provisional attachment order quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made at the time of search cannot be construed as voluntary under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03.
The Court held that an adjudication based solely on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch cannot stand when the prescribed procedure under Circular 183/15/2022-GST is not followed. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Karnataka High Court quashed several notices, assessment orders, and bank garnishments issued under sections 148A, 147, 156, and 226(3), allowing the cooperative federation’s petition.
Karnataka High Court held that IGST wrongly paid to Centre on intra-state supplies is required to be refunded back since CGST/SGST already paid to the State GST Authorities. Accordingly, petition is allowed and order rejecting refund claim set aside.
The Court quashed the adjudication and appellate orders after finding that the prescribed Circular on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A discrepancies was not followed. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Court held that payments received by the assessee could not be treated as professional income because no proof of services rendered was produced. The ruling confirms that absence of evidence justifies treating such receipts as salary.
