The Court held that the impugned GST notice and adjudication orders suffered from multiple legal defects and quashed them. Authorities can issue a fresh notice, with limitation suspended for the contested period.
Karnataka High Court held that works contract entered with State and other Government agencies needs to calculate works executed Pre-GST under KVAT regime and Post-GST. Thus, reimbursement/ refund is to be granted for differential tax liability taking into account Pre-GST and Post-GST tax liability.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the show-cause notice was uploaded under an unconventional portal section, preventing the petitioner from responding.
Karnataka High Court held that notification no. 2/2023- Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 31.03.2023 and 3/2023 dated 26.07.2023 directing to pay compensation cess at Maximum Retail Price [MRP] as against transaction value runs counter to the CGST Act. Accordingly, the said notifications are quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued and served without signature of the Assessing Officer is a foundational defect and the same cannot be ignored. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is invalid.
A valid Chartered Accountant certificate was sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the incidence of 4% SAD was not passed on to customers and discharge the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
