Karnataka High Court held that payments made to Non-resident Telecom Operators for provision of bandwidth and Inter-connectivity Usage Charge are not covered as Royalty/ FTS and, accordingly, TDS not deductible. Further, assessee is entitled to take benefit of DTAA between two countries.
Read the comprehensive analysis of the case where the Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee’s income based on loose papers, and how the Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
The Karnataka High Court instructs to defreeze the bank account of Guard India Secure Services Pvt Ltd after they provide security amidst a service tax dispute with the Union of India.
The Karnataka High Court dismisses an appeal involving Manipal Finance Corporation Limited due to monetary limitations, based on Circular No.17 of 2019 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
Read the full text of the judgment/order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding sealing or breaking premises. Get detailed analysis and conclusion.This article provides an overview of the judgment/order issued by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding the sealing or breaking of premises. The analysis delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner and the response from the learned counsel for the Revenue. Finally, the conclusion highlights the court’s decision and subsequent actions. Analysis: The petitioner, Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 67(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. The case revolves around the sealing of the petitioner’s premises by the respondent officers during a search operation. The petitioner argues that the sealing was done without legal authority. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the authorization order for the search was issued solely based on suspicion and does not grant the authority to seal the premises. Additionally, it is argued that Section 67(4) of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access was not denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Revenue’s counsel presents the original file, which contains an authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore. The authorization grants the officer, Sri J.J. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the power to conduct inspection, search, and seizure of the premises in question. The court acknowledges the validity of this authorization, thus refuting the petitioner’s argument. The court refers to Section 67(4) of the Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open premises and receptacles suspected of containing goods, accounts, registers, or documents. The Revenue asserts that denial of access to the computer system and the disruption of the tally software and internet connection led to the invocation of Section 67(4) and subsequent sealing of the premises. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent No.3, assures the court that the petitioner’s premises will be unsealed in the petitioner’s presence on a mutually convenient date, provided the petitioner cooperates with the inspection and search of the computer system and other records. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court orders the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on a revised date of 08.02.2019, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner is expected to cooperate with the inspection and search of the premises, including the computer system. This judgment clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the GST Act and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures in conducting searches and sealing premises.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 blocking the tweets/accounts for an indefinite period are unassailable on the doctrine of proportionality.
Karnataka High Court held that exemption certificate from the Commissioner of Tourism, Government of Kerala exempting payment of sales tax is valid for 7 years and could not have been rescinded before the period of eligibility expired as it is sovereign assurance.
Karnataka High Court held that AO based on incorrect assumption treated the money collected by the trust as capitation fee under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. In absence of any violation of KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act duly available.
Karnataka High Court provided guidelines relating to applicability of tax on works executed prior to 01.07.2017 and works executed after 01.07.2017 in case of where work contract is executed between the petitioners and the State/ other Government agencies.
Delve into the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on the extended limitation period for ITC refund claims, where the case of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd. Vs Union of India was examined.
