The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
The High Court set aside an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer. It held that once the department knows of the death, proceedings must continue only against the legal heirs.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to prohibit Kambala in areas like Bengaluru, noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the legality of state amendments allowing such traditional sports.
Karnataka High Court held that the rent received by leasing out residential premises for the purpose of students, staff and teachers would not be exigible / amenable to GST. Accordingly, order is set aside and present petition is allowed.
The High Court held that provisional attachment of fixed deposits cannot be ordered without recording proper reasons and satisfaction based on tangible material. Since the orders were cryptic and lacked justification, they were set aside.
The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the provision applies only when dishonour is linked to insufficient funds or lack of arrangement.
Official Liquidator Vs Kirloskar Institute (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal filed by the Official Liquidator of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (the company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.826/2011 in Company Petition No.166/2001. The Company Court had dismissed the application filed by […]
The Court held that blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger must automatically cease after one year under Rule 86A(3). Continued restriction beyond the statutory period was declared illegal.
The High Court condoned delay in filing a GST appeal where the taxpayer believed the supplier would rectify an ITC mismatch. The appeal was restored for decision on merits.
The Karnataka High Court held that once cognizance is taken, a private complaint assumes the nature of an FIR and may be referred to by the complainant during testimony. The Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision permitting such reference.
