Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017, which was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others, where it held that in view of the amendment inserting Section 16(5), the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity and heard by the original authority, which should then proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the present petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, directing the authorities to implement the provisions after granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
The Karnataka High Court disposed of the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017, which was alleged to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution. The Court relied on its previous judgment in M/s. Sadhana Enviro Engineering Services vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax & others, where it held that in view of the amendment inserting Section 16(5), the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity and heard by the original authority, which should then proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, the present petition was allowed and disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment, directing the authorities to implement the provisions after granting a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
