Karnataka High Court held that petitioner failed to prove how notification no. DCOM(I&C)/AC/CR.22/10-11) dated 24.05.2010 is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 or the Constitution of India. Accordingly, notification no. DCOM(I&C)/AC/CR.22/10-11) dated 24.05.2010 issued by authorities to track movement of goods is valid.
Karnataka High Court in the case of revocation of cancellation of the registration for non-filing of returns, allowed the petition and directed Superintendent of Central Tax to pass suitable order for revocation in case pending returns are furnished by petitioner within a period of four weeks.
Suretex Prophylactics (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that as on the date of recovery, there was no order/ adjudication made by the department quantifying the amount of tax/ duty payable by the petitioner. Accordingly, recovery of such amount is without authority of law and liable to […]
HC held that impugned amendment to Rule 89(4) (C) of the CGST Rules, as amended vide Para 8 of Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, unfair, unjust and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST
Karnataka High Court held the charger which is sold along with the mobile phone in one set and accordingly taxable at 5% as covered under entry 53 of Schedule III of KVAT Act.
Held that, the issuance of vouchers is similar to pre-deposit instruments, which have no inherent value of their own and therefore, it does not fall under the category of supply of goods or services. Hence, vouchers being neither goods nor services, are exempted from the levy of tax.
Karnataka High Court held that amendment to Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) can be done only by the Central Government and not by DGFT. Whereas, amendment to the procedure can be done by DGFT.
HC held that, pay roll related services outsourced to foreign company would be treated as business income earned by foreign company and not a technical service therefore, would not be liable for TDS
State of Karnataka Vs Hemanth Motors (Karnataka High Court) Learned AGA appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued and contended that unloading was not done until 5.00 p.m. on the next day and therefore, the goods cannot be transported without seeking extension of validity period of E-way bill. The learned AGA would further contend that […]
Karnataka High Court held that in absence of any willful default on the part of the company, authorized signatory (vice-president) cannot be hauled into the web of crime for an offence under section 409 of the IPC.
