Karnataka High Court
For assessee
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Karnataka, newest first.
5 rulings found
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's refund of tax paid on export of services was rejected under Rule 96, since Rule 96(10) had been omitted without any saving or sunset clause, ongoing restriction could not be maintained and refund could not be denied in view of Supreme Court's decision that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue in absence of any saving provision
Karnataka High Court
Where manpower service provider deposited amounts through DRC-03 ahead of any statutory demand or fraud allegation, without DRC-04 acknowledgment and without interest or penalty as required for fraud matters, such payment was not voluntary under GST rules, thus, rejection of refund of such amount was erroneous and refund with interest was directed, keeping adjudication on underlying SCN open
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner imported X-Ray inspection system prior to GST and claimed transitional ITC through GSTR-3B based on Central advice but refund was denied citing closure of TRAN-1 window and jurisdiction, as refund was never considered on merits, petitioner's claim required decision by Central authority, thus, petitioner was to be granted liberty to represent before respondent for decision on refund entitlement based on transitional credit
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner challenged Show Cause Notice and validity of Rule 96(10) regarding refund of integrated tax paid on exports, since Rule 96(10) was struck down in same was and later omitted vide a notification, continuation of proceedings under said rule was unsustainable and all notices and proceedings were to be quashed
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking