Kalebudde Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) When the appeal is pending against the main order, the petitioner could not have filed writ petition for release of goods which are subject matter of appeal. Section 129 and 130 of the Act provides for release of goods on payment of fine. Accordingly, the writ […]
M/s Onyx Designs Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Conclusion: In absence of any other allegations made against the purchasing dealer in the assessment orders, merely for the reason that selling dealers had not deposited the collected tax amount or some of the selling dealers had been subsequently deregistered could not […]
Reopening of assessment on basis of withdrawal of deduction allowed under Section 10A relating to the assessment year 2007-08 was without application of mind and nothing but the change of opinion, which tantamounted to review and the same was not permissible to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148.
Yashodhara Shroff Vs. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) (a) It is held that Section 164(2)(a) of the Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The said provision is not manifestly arbitrary and also does not fall within the scope of the doctrine of proportionality. Neither does the said provision violate Article […]
Deputy Commissioner for Stamps (DC) erroneously directed assessee to pay stamp duty under Article 28(a) of the Stamp Act without properly examining the recitals of the document where the relationship of the donor and the donee was clearly mentioned and without looking into the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Stamp Act, therefore, the order could not be sustained.
Sri Deepak Dhanaraj Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court) In this case AO has not whispered about the revised return filed by the assessee except observing that the returns filed by the assessee were invalidated being defective returns. If that being the position, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner under section 139(9) of the Act […]
Golden Gate Properties Ltd Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Section 278AA makes it clear that in order to get over the penal consequences that follow on account of non-payment of tax deducted at source, it is open for the accused persons to come clean of the said charge by showing reasonable cause for failure to […]
Yokogawa India Ltd Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Facts Assailing the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.6, Petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to enable them to revise their Form GST TRAN-1 in order to transit the amount of Rs.4,31,32,066/- in the Electronic Credit Ledger in terms of […]
B. Banu Bee Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) This Court in the case of Sri. Avainash Aradhya Vs. the Commissioner of Central Tax in Criminal Petititon No.497/2019 c/w Criminal Petition No.498/2019 by order dated 18.2.2019 has elaborately discussed the provisions of law and other aspects as to under what circumstances the bail has […]
The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 281B of the Act has been ceased to have effect after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the assessment. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the provisional attachment further would not arise and the same can be allayed with a direction to the respondent- authorities that the said order shall not be enforced until a decision is to be taken by the Appellate Authority on the stay application, if to be filed in the appeal proceedings by the assessee within a period of three weeks as aforesaid and is ordered
