Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Iprocess Clinical Marketing Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-1) Bangalore – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for records of the Petitioner's case in GST AP No. 45/2022-23 on the file of the 1st Respondent;
(ii) Issue a Writ/Direction/Order in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing/setting aside the impugned Order dated 31.07.2023 in GST AP No. 45/2022-23 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure - A) along with Summary of Demand dated 31.07.2023 bearing No. GST A.P. No. 45/2022-23 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure - A1);
(iii) Issue a Writ/Direction/Order in the nature of CERTIORARI, quashing/setting aside the impugned Order dated 31.03.2022 bearing No. CTO(AUDIT)-1.8/GST/DRC- 7/1/T.No-/2021-22 Order u 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act passed by the 2nd Respondent (Annexure - B);
(iv) Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests justice and equity.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority at Annexure-B dated 31.03.2022 and the impugned order passed
Amendments clarifying tax applicability operate retrospectively, confirming that luxury tax on ICU charges is exempt based on legislative intent as clarified in the GST Council meeting.
Amendments clarifying tax exemptions for ICU services are retrospective, relieving hospitals from GST on such charges based on legislative intent.
The amendment exempting luxury tax on ICU charges is retrospective, reinforcing the principle that clarificatory statutes apply to prior assessments.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which restricted refunds of IGST on exports where benefits of certain notifications were availed, was declared void for future cases following its omission by new legis....
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act was declared unconstitutional, thus quashing all related proceedings, affirming rights to refund under the IGST Act without a saving clause.
The court affirmed that luxury tax applies to medical bed charges in hospitals, while penalties for non-declaration were set aside due to the petitioner's bona fide belief of non-liability.
![Sance Laboratories Private Limited VS Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance [Department of Revenue] - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1148](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was declared ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act for imposing unjust restrictions on exporters' right to claim IGST refunds.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
