The Karnataka High Court quashed an appellate order dismissing a GST appeal on limitation grounds after finding that proper reasons for refusing condonation were not recorded. The matter was remitted for decision on merits.
The Karnataka High Court held that the three-month period for filing a waiver application under Section 128A was directory and not mandatory. The Court quashed rejection of the waiver application that had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
Karnataka High Court held that GST proceedings initiated for FY 2021-22 were without jurisdiction because the Joint Commissioner lacked valid authority to assign proceedings beyond the permitted period.
The Court held that shareholder resolutions seeking removal of directors under Section 284 are independent of Section 188 requirements relating to circulation of members’ resolutions.
The Karnataka High Court directed fresh adjudication after the petitioner submitted e-way bill details, vehicle numbers, and ledger accounts to explain alleged mismatches in Input Tax Credit claims.
The Karnataka High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) extends the timeline for claiming ITC for financial year 2018-19. The Court quashed the adjudication order denying ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4).
The Karnataka High Court condoned a 60-day delay in filing a GST appeal and restored the matter for decision on merits. The Court relied on earlier decisions passed in similar circumstances.
Karnataka High Court observed that the department wrongly construed the term “may” as mandatory while rejecting the waiver application filed under Section 128A of the CGST Act.
The Karnataka High Court held that once confiscation orders are passed under Section 130 of the CGST/KGST Act, the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. The Court dismissed appeals seeking modification of interim release conditions for detained goods and vehicles.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenue appeals challenging banks’ eligibility for CENVAT credit on service tax paid for deposit insurance premium. The Court held that the issue already stood concluded by earlier Kerala and Bombay High Court rulings.
