Search Under IT Act Is Person-Centric; Premises Don't Decide 'Searched Person': Karnataka High Court

Holding that a “searched person” under the Income Tax Act is determined by the person against whom statutory satisfaction is recorded and not by whose premises are searched, the Karnataka High Court on Friday ruled that a taxpayer cannot be treated as a searched person merely because a search was conducted at his premises.The ruling came in a case where the tax department initiated proceedings against the taxpayer under Section 153C based on documents seized during a search conducted at his...

Cheque Return Memo Need Not Bear Bank Seal Or Signature To Prove Dishonour: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a cheque return memo need not carry a bank's seal or signature to establish dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly where the process is handled through electronic clearing systems. “In view of the electronic clearance, the seal and signature is not mandatory and therefore, seal and signature, official mark etc., on Ex.P.2 cannot be a ground to reject the complaint,” a bench of Justice V Srishananda said. ...

GST Refund Limitation Mandatory; Delay Can Be Condoned Under Article 226 In Cases Of Genuine Hardship: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory, and cannot be relaxed by tax authorities. However, in cases of genuine hardship, delay in filing refund claims may be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226, subject to safeguards protecting the Revenue.The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind made the ruling. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides provisions for claiming refunds of...

Mere Allegation Of Fraud Not A Bar To Arbitration: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 8 April held that mere allegations of fraud or prior monetary transactions do not oust arbitration where the dispute arises from agreements containing arbitration clauses. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that Courts must refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless a party shows that no prima facie arbitration agreement exists. It further noted the interplay with the...

Karnataka High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas Challenging CCI Probe Into Amazon, Flipkart-Linked Sellers

The Karnataka High Court on April 10 reserved its judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging the scope of the Competition Commission of India's probe into alleged anti-competitive practices by Amazon and Flipkart, particularly the power of the Director General to array additional parties during the investigation.A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after hearing the parties, reserved the judgment.Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, appearing for Rocket Kommerce LLP and related...

Authorities Where Immovable Properties Are Located Duty-Bound To Enforce Other High Court Orders: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that when a Constitutional Court issues directions concerning immovable properties situated in another State, authorities where such properties are located are duty-bound to implement them.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a petition filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a secured creditor of Electrex (India) Limited, seeking implementation of directions issued by the Bombay High Court concerning certain sale transactions involving mortgaged properties...

Karnataka HC Allows Arbitration Plea Filed By Retired Partner As It Was Not Filed As Partner Of Unregistered Firm

The Karnataka High Court has held that, in the facts of the case, a retired partner can seek to refer a dispute to arbitration to defend himself in a recovery suit, and such a plea cannot be rejected merely because the partnership firm was not registered. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha was considering an appeal challenging an order of the Commercial Court, which had refused to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration...

Busy Schedule, Travel Not 'Sufficient Cause': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Arbitration Appeal

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to condone a delay of 85 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that a busy schedule and travel do not constitute “sufficient cause." Holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and also devoid of merit, the court dismissed the appeal filed by L Vivekananda against Handy 101 Solutions and Service Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter Peter Pushparaj, thereby upholding the Commercial Court's order...

Pigmy Agents Are Employees, Commission Paid Them Not Subject To GST: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 8 April, held that banks engage pigmy (deposit collection) agents as employees, not independent service providers. Therefore, the commission paid to them does not attract Goods and Services Tax (GST). A Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank's writ petition and quashed all show cause notices issued by GST authorities under the reverse charge mechanism. He held: “The show cause notices issued by the respondent proceed on an...

Disputes Under Subsequent Agreement Without Arbitration Clause Not Arbitrable: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 2 April, held that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot decide disputes arising from a subsequent agreement that lacks an arbitration clause, nor can it rely on an earlier lapsed agreement whose arbitration clause has ceased to operate. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha set aside an award that directed execution of a sale deed between M. Mallikarjuna and Smt. Rajeshwari Mallikarjuna (appellants) and S.P. Sridhara and S.P. Muralidhar...

Limitation To Pass Transfer Pricing Order Cannot Be Extended By Treating Remand As Fresh Reference: Karnataka High Court

Rejecting the income tax department's attempt to treat a Tribunal remand as a fresh transfer pricing reference to extend limitation, the Karnataka High Court has held that no order can be passed once the statutory time limit expires. A single-judge bench of Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised that there is a “world of difference” between a reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(1) and a remand of the matter by the Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's...

Karnataka High Court Holds Bona Fide Purchaser Entitled To ITC, Reads Down Rules In Favor Of Instakart

The Karnataka High Court on 9 February 2026 held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) merely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax with the government. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar read down Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act and Rule 36(4) of the CGST / KGST Rules to set aside the order denying ITC to Instakart Services Private Limited. He held: “The impugned provisions contained in Section 16(2)(C) of the CGST / KGST Act...