Login | Register
GST Library
TaxReply Support
YouTube Videos
Twitter
Buy Premium Tax Domains
About Us
Contact Us
Our Services
TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

GST Case Laws


TaxReply Citation TAXREPLY
Court
High Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

  OR
Date (From)
Date (To)
Name of Party
Text Search
Text Search option

  13,161 Results

Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the penalty order dated 18.12.2017, the appellate order dated 6.1.2018 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the full amount of security deposited by the petitioner. It is not disputed that the impugned orders are appealable under Secti...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant No, 1, vide minutes of its meeting held on 0805.201B had referred a case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering against the Respondent alleging profiteering on the supply of “Refrigerator Whirlpool FP313D PROTTON ROY MIRROR” (HSN code 84182100) (hereinafter referred to as the product) by not passing on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax w.e.f. 01 07.2017, by way of commensurate reduction in price, in terms of S...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow it to avail the short transitioning of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) amounting to Rs. 5,51,33,699/- by either updating the electronic credit ledger at their back end in accord with the details of credit submitted by the Petitioner or allowing them to revise the Form GST TRAN-1, in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by th...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 1 Mr Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the High Court was not justified in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of deciding upon the validity of the action initiated by the revenue authorities when an alternate remedy would have been available to the assessee. 2 Moreover, it has been submitted that the entire judgment of the Hig...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Shri S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri D Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S Bora, learned counsel for the respondents- Guwahati Municipal Corporation. Considering the subject matter in dispute and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that pleadings are complete, this matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ASSOCIATED ROAD CARRIERS LTD. vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Jun 15, 2020)

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India, the writ applicant engaged in the business of transport has prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) that your lordships be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 07.06.2020, under the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act, specifying the tax and penalty of ₹ 2,02,974/- payable, along with the related provisions of State GST and/or integrated GST Act, in the interest of justice; (B) Pend...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

OM SAI TRADERS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER (1)


(Gujarat High Court | Jun 15, 2020)

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs : “(a) this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition; (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned undated Notice issued under Form MOV-10 by the respondent, under Section 130 of the CGST Act and the provisions of the GGST Act; (c) This Hon’ble Court may, during the pendency of the...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :- “a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction,the respondents be directed to reopen the portal. In the event they do not do so, they may be directed to entertain the form GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner manually and pass orders on it after due verification of the Input Tax Credits as claimed by the peti...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ABHISHEK MODGIL vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Jun 12, 2020)

1. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner is proprietor of M/s Mahadev Metals. The petitioner obtained GST registration and had taxable supplies/transactions of goods to the tune of ₹ 20,46,52,098/-. He is stated to have committed tax evasion to the tune of ₹ 4,02,00,136/- by gener...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

JAI ENTERPRISES vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Jun 12, 2020)

Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, ASGI assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey for respondent No.2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Appeal No.GST/KN/109/2018/P by respondent no.4 under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017/ Section 20 of the IGST...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


15
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
20 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-3B

GSTR-3B for the m/o Apr 2025 (Monthly Taxpayer - Rule 61) - Either Compulsory taxpayer > 5 cr. or Voluntary taxpayer < 5 cr.

☑ Monthly | GSTR-5A

GSTR-5A for the m/o Apr 2025 [Return by OIDAR Service Providers - Rule 64.]

25 May

☑ Monthly | PMT-06

PMT-06 Monthly tax payment for Apr 2025 under QRMP Scheme [Rule 61(1)(ii) - Proviso to Section 39(7)].

Taxpayers have a choice to pay tax either, as per -  

A) Fixed Sum Method OR 
B) Self assessment basis subject to interest on short payment of taxes.
(Notification No.85/2020 - CT)
 
28 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-11

GSTR-11 for the m/o Apr 2025 (Statement of inward supplies by persons having Unique Identification Number (UIN)).