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

  13,223 Results

AMIT CHANDRAKANT SHAH vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Mar 13, 2020)

ORDER 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with File No.ACST/Unit-6/AC-1/ARREST MEMORANDUM/2019-20/B.23 registered with Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-1, Unit-6, Ahmedabad, now converted into Criminal Case No.3226 of 2020 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, for offence under Sections 132(1)(b),(c),(f), (k), (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

STATE TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. CILANTRO DINERS PVT. LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Mar 13, 2020)

ORDER 1. The Present Report dated 13.09.2019, received on 16.09.2019 by this Authority, has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received by the DGAP from the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering on 27.03.2019 recommending a detailed investigation in respect of an application, originally examin...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

STATE TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. BONNE SANTE


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Mar 13, 2020)

ORDER 1. The Present Report dated 13.09.2019, received on 16.09.2019 by this Authority, has been furnished by Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129(6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that a reference was received from the Standing Committee on Anti Profiteering on 27.03.2019 by the DGAP with a recommendation to conduct a detailed investigation in respect of an application fi...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice has been issued by Superintendent, Central Goods & Service Tax, Rudrapur; although, he is not competent for the purpose. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon one Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017, which provides that Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax alone will be the proper officer for exercising power...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. LFONDS INDIA PVT. LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 12, 2020)

PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act” respectively] by M/s. Lfonds India Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questio...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. PORTESCAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 12, 2020)

PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under Section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act” respectively] by Portescap India Private Limited, the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following question...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ASHISH ARVIND HANSOTI


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 12, 2020)

PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under Section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act” respectively] by M/s. ASHISH ARVIND HANSOTI., the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questio...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. THE RUBY MILLS LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttarakhand | Mar 12, 2020)

Note:- Under Section 100(1) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the appellate authority for advance ruling constituted under section 99 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order. AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS FOR THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Goods and Services Tax) 1. This is an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the CGST /SGST Act, 2017 ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER Heard Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Also heard Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Taxation Department, for respondent Nos.3 and 4 2. The matter pertains to determination of the quantum of tax liability to be paid by the petitioner upon successful execution of works contract, as to whether it should be determined as per the GST regime @ 12% or under the VAT regime @5%...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by communication dated 21/11/2019, issued by the Office of Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise through Additional Commissioner (Tech.) GST & Central Excise, Head Quarters Ujjain, wherein the respondent no.8 by referring to the minutes of the meeting of 7th ITGRC, held on 11/06/2019 has disallowed the legitimate and rightful un-availed CENVAT credit on Input services, Inputs and...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


19
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)).