Karnataka High Court
GST Cannot Be Deducted From Compensation For Compulsory Land Acquisition: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the deduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) from compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition of land, holding that such acquisition is not a "supply of goods or services" under the GST law."An immovable property cannot at any stretch of imagination is construed as goods. Therefore, there is neither supply of goods nor services, but an expropriation of the property of a citizen using statutory power. The petitioner has neither sold any goods nor...
Supreme Court Alone Can Decide Replacement Of Arbitrator It Appointed: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that once the Supreme Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any issue arising later that affects the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, including the arbitrator's recusal, withdrawal or substitution, can be decided only by the Supreme Court.A single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "The appointment of the Arbitrator was not by the institutional mechanism of SIAC or from any consensual...
Karnataka High Court Clears Release Of 'BOSS' Movie, Rejects Darshan's Plea Over Renukaswamy Murder Case Similarities
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by actor Darshan Srinivas (Darshan Thoogudeepa) and his wife Vijayalakshmi challenging the refusal to temporarily restrain the release of the Kannada film BOSS. The court held that the existence of certain similarities between the film and the pending trial relating to the alleged murder of Renukaswamy, in which the actor is facing trial as an accused, was by itself not sufficient to justify an interim injunction. Justice Pradeep...
Karnataka High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Cancelling JDA Over Mutual Breach By Developer And Landowners
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an arbitral award cancelling a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) between Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd. and a group of landowners for a residential apartment project in Bengaluru. It held that the arbitral tribunal was justified in refusing specific performance after finding that both sides had failed to fulfil their contractual obligations. A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha observed that the tribunal had not decided...
PMLA Prosecution After Conviction In Predicate Offence Does Not Attract Double Jeopardy: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) after conviction in the predicate offence does not amount to double jeopardy. It observed that money laundering is a distinct statutory offence and prosecution under the PMLA is not a second trial for the same offence.A bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, "The prosecution under the PMLA is neither the second trial for the same offence nor constitutional transgression. It is a...
BoB Can Consider Company Promoters' Creditworthiness For Tender Eligibility: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld Bank of Baroda's decision to disqualify Manipal Technologies Limited (MTL) from participating in a tender. It held that a procuring entity is entitled to consider the financial standing and creditworthiness of a company's promoters while assessing its eligibility.A bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed MTL's writ appeal challenging an interim order refusing to stay its disqualification from the bank's tender for...
Karnataka High Court Upholds Deletion Of Tax Addition On Advances Received By Businessman Procuring Land
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹21.11 crore tax addition made against a Bengaluru-based businessman engaged in identifying and procuring land for real estate projects. The court held that advances received in the course of that business cannot be taxed merely because they remained outstanding for several years.The court observed that the mere passage of time does not amount to forfeiture, and such advances cannot be treated as taxable income in the absence of material...
Transit Pass Surrender Not Conclusive Proof Of Goods Movement, Doesn't Bar KVAT Penalty: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court on 15 July held that surrender of a transit pass under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act does not conclusively establish genuine interstate movement of goods or prevent authorities from initiating penalty proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao dismissed an appeal filed by Sri C. Girish, proprietor of Jai Gurudev Road Carriers, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act (which provides for penalty...
Karnataka High Court Holds CESTAT Must Decide Limitation Plea Before Remanding Excise Matter
The Karnataka High Court on 2 July held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) must decide a specifically pleaded limitation objection before remanding an excise dispute for adjudication on merits, as accepting the limitation plea could make further proceedings unnecessary. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. disposed of the appeal filed by Lotus Printers Private Limited and directed CESTAT to decide the limitation issue while keeping its...
Karnataka High Court Upholds ₹1.77 Lakh Refund, Says Developer Failed To Establish RERA Exemption Claim
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing a Bengaluru-based real estate developer and its promoter to refund about ₹1.77 lakh with interest to homebuyers. It found that the project, which remained unregistered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, could not claim exemption from registration without demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed:“It is the mandate of...
Karnataka High Court Holds S. 271DA , IT Act Penalty Begins Only With S. 274 Notice, Reads In Six-Month Limit
The Karnataka High Court on 7 July held that penalty proceedings under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act commence only when the Joint Commissioner issues a show cause notice under Section 274, and not when the Assessing Officer merely forwards a proposal for initiating penalty. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind partly allowed a batch of ten Revenue appeals, clarifying that, although the Act does not prescribe a time limit for issuing a notice under Section 274, the...