Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The issue was whether an excessive delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Tribunal allowed condonation but imposed costs, balancing justice with procedural discipline.
The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
The case examined whether goods were actually supplied against invoices. The Tribunal ruled that lack of infrastructure and transport evidence indicated non-genuine transactions, justifying penalty.
The Court held that filing NIL returns does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 29(2) of the GST Act. As a result, the cancellation order and show cause notice were declared legally unsustainable.
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
The issue was whether income tax refunds can be appropriated for service tax dues. The High Court ruled that such adjustment violates statutory provisions and directed relief to the taxpayer. The SC dismissed the revenue’s appeal, affirming the outcome.
The Court held that cash cannot be seized under GST provisions as it is excluded from the definition of “goods” and was not shown to be relevant to any proceedings. It directed immediate return of the seized amount, emphasizing limits on seizure powers.
The Court set aside the GST order as it was issued before the date fixed for hearing, denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
The case addressed disallowance of interest under Section 57 for lack of nexus. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that consistency in earlier years and increased investments justified the claim.
