HC
upholds recovery of refunded Input Tax Credit u/s 10(5) r/w Section 69(1) of
Karnataka VAT Act despite repeal of said enactment w.e.f. July 2017
vide Karnataka GST Act, 2017; Perusing repeals and savings provisions u/s
173 r/w Section 174 of KGST Act, HC holds that repeal of KVAT would not affect
proceedings initiated by Revenue authorities; Notes that refund had been
granted pursuant to Division Bench decision in M K Agro Tech Pvt Ltd which had
held that principles of partial rebate u/s 17 of KVAT Act were inapplicable to
inputs utilized in exempt by-products, but SC had subsequently reversed said HC
order; Finds that HC’s refund order was subject to outcome in SLP before SC in
case of M K Agro Tech Pvt Ltd and indemnity bonds furnished by assessee and
while ordinarily no rectification can be allowed on the basis of subsequent HC
/ SC order, it was obligatory on assessee’s part to obey Court orders and
could not now assail Revenue’s recovery proceedings; However, reads down
Circular dated October 9 2017 issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to
maintain uniformity in collection of taxes, by holding that levy of
interest / penalty shall be subject to provision of reasonable
opportunity of hearing to assessee : Karnataka HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Requirement to dematerialize shares of private limited companies
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs in October 2023 had mandated private companies and their shareholders to dematerialize their shareholding...
-
Particulars in Part 1 and Part 2 of Step-2 of registration form are required to be exactly the same as reported in the TDS statement. Plea...
-
1. Introduction: Every trust/charitable society/ NGO that wishes to claim the tax exemption benefits has to file Form 10A to seek fresh re...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
NECESSITY : Sometimes, in view of the expansion of the business, multiple increase in turnover and need for getting finances from the ...
-
· Mumbai ITAT in the case of Mukesh Harilal Mehta held that Exemption U/S 54 cannot be denied merely due to mistake by the developer.
-
Filing income tax returns (ITR) within the specified timelines under the Income-tax Act is not just a legal obligation but also crucial fo...
-
Earlier this year, the Mauritius Government approved the amendment to the India – Mauritius tax treaty, aligning it with the proposal of th...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent instruction issued by the SEZ Division, Department of Commerce, clarifying various concerns relating t...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC) [1] dealing with the issue of denial of input tax credit (ITC) ...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
No comments:
Post a Comment