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)
India-Mauritius DTAA Protocol Notified: Key Tax Implications
The Government of India has notified the amendment to the Protocol of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) on 13 Oct...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
In a recent informal guidance letter, SEBI clarified whether a cousin of a Promoter Group member qualifies as a person ‘related to promote...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Key features of File Validation Utility (FVU) version 3.3 FVU 3.3 will be applicable for quarterly TDS/ TCS statements pertaining to...
-
CIT vs. The Instalment Supply Ltd (Delhi High Court) The assessee bought 1614 items of computer systems for Rs.40 lacs from HCL Hewlett ...
-
Facts The applicant („A‟) is a closely held Public Limited company incorporated in India in the year 1953. A‟s shareholder included A (...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
Until now, 'Samaritans' is not how the Independent Directors are purported by Clause 49 in the Listing agreement. An Independ...
-
1. Concept of “limited liability partnership” LLP is an alternative corporate business form that gives the benefits of limited liability ...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
No comments:
Post a Comment