Mundkar Madhavaraya Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of […]
Consequent upon the 101st amendment to the Constitution certain taxes including the taxes and advertisement which were levied by the respective States and the Union were subsumed into goods and service tax The authority to levy tax which was available under entry No.55 List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution had been omitted Consequently the inferior corporate bodies of the State did not have power to levy and collect the tax on advertisement.
Karnataka High Court held that it is not necessary for each partner to contribute towards share capital for becoming partner in the partnership firm.
Karnataka High Court held that the benefits of implementing Bharath Series (BH-Series) registration is available to private individuals also. The State of Karnataka cannot deviate from the notification dated 26.08.2021 issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
Infor (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, respondents have issued a Circular bearing No.159/15/2021 -GST dated 20.09.2021 clarifying and explaining the scope of Intermediary services. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said explanation […]
Karnataka High Court held the provisional attachment order unjustifiable as the same was passed simply stating that there is likely addition of the amount without mentioning of any valid and cogent reasons.
HC set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner denying the interest to the assessee for delayed refund and granted relief under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for committing delay in issuing service tax refund order.
The burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the same except relying upon the endorsement, nothing is placed on record and also the author of the document has not been examined.
ABB Global Industries Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High court In case of ABB Global Industries and services Pvt Ltd, Quashed the order passed by the PO on reason of natural justice , as petitioner requested additional time for hearing , PO rejected and passed the order FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF […]
Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Vidya W/O Sagar Aitawade (Karnataka High Court) The cheque in question was issued on 01.08.2019. The petitioners, who were the Directors of the Company, ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect from 22.03.2017 which is evident from the Form No.DIR-12 issued by Registrar of the Companies and the same […]
