The Karnataka High Court set aside the impugned order after finding that the entire tax demand had been recovered despite an interim judicial stay. It directed refund of the amount recovered beyond the 20% pre-deposit and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the assessee was given only three hours’ notice for a video conference despite seeking a later hearing. The matter was remanded with directions to provide a proper opportunity to reply and participate in a fresh hearing.
The Karnataka High Court held that appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against inadequacy of sentence are not maintainable. It relied on an earlier Coordinate Bench decision and dismissed the appeals.
The Karnataka High Court held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the possible legal views. The Commissioner’s revisional order and the Tribunal’s order were quashed.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the order rejecting revocation of GST registration because documents submitted by the taxpayer were not considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing.
The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing appeals after noting that the issue relating to contributions under Section 57(2A) of the KCS Act had remained unresolved for over a decade. The Court also directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the remanded matter within four months.
The Karnataka High Court held that a Magistrate conducting recovery proceedings under the KVAT Act has no authority to determine the validity of statutory ‘H’ Forms. The Court directed the taxpayer to approach the Assessing Authority instead.
The High Court refused to entertain the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the questions raised had already been decided in the assessee’s favour in an earlier judgment involving the same assessment year.
The Karnataka High Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act could not continue against a former director who had resigned before the company’s commercial activities began. Finding no specific allegations against him, the Court quashed the proceedings.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the adequacy of sentence should be presented before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. It permitted withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to pursue the appropriate forum.
