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

ORDER The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by communication dated 01/05/2019, issued by the Office of Superintendent, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Indore wherein the respondent no.8 by referring to letter C. No.CGST/R-III/Div- III/Misc/2018-19/19 dated 16/04/2019 has disallowed the legitimate and rightful un-availed CENVAT credit on Input services, Inputs and on Capital Goods pertaining to the time period preceding the introducti...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHRI SAI TRADING COMPANY vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS


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

1. The Petitioner had approached this Court at the stage when the goods were sought to be confiscated under Section 130 of Punjab Goods and Service Act, 2017 (PGST Act, 2017). On 4th October, 2019, the following orders were passed: “Petitioner company is situated at Ganganagar, Rajasthan and being the consignor had dispatched the goods comprising Iron Scrap to the consignee firm situated at Mandi Gobindgarh, when the goods were intercepted; and due to discrepancies in the d...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHIV OM TRADING COMPANY vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS


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

1. Petitioner has approached this Court at the stage when the goods were confiscated under Section 130 of Punjab Goods and Service Act, 2017 (PGST Act, 2017). On 24th October, 2019, the following orders were passed: “Contends that in similar writ petitions involving identical issues, this Court has issued notices and are now fixed for 5.12.2019. Notice of motion for 5.12.2019. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notic...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by communication dated 22/11/2019, 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.9 by referring to the minutes of the meeting of 7th ITGRC, held on 03/04/2018 has disallowed the legitimate and rightful un-availed CENVAT credit on Input services, Inputs and on Capita...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Infructuous. Applications stand disposed of. Notice. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh K. Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appear and accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3 and respondents No.2, 4 & 5, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. Since the similar subject matter is involved in these writ petitions, therefore, with the consent ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER Mr. Misra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and reiterates submissions made and recorded in order dated 20th February, 2020. The submission was that challenge in this writ petition is covered by judgment dated 23rd January, 2020 made by a Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat, in, inter alia, R/Special Civil Application 726 of 2018 [(Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & 1 other(s)] wherein view taken was that no tax is leviable under Integrated Goods ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KN MURTHY vs. SURENDER BANTIA PREMRAJ SURENDER BANTIA


(Telangana High Court | Mar 12, 2020)

ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 02.12.2019 passed in IA.No.451 of 2019 in OS.No.230 of 2019 of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the extent it went against the petitioners. 3. It is not in dispute that in para 5 of the said order, the Court below had also mentioned that the petitioners are entitled to rents for the month of November 2018. But in the last part of the said order, by oversight the Court below ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MANOJ BHANWARLAL JAIN vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Mar 12, 2020)

ORDER 1. Affidavit in reply on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. 2. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with F.No.V/1514/ DGGI/VAPI/201920 registered with Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Vapi Regional Unit, for offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING vs. M/S. PATANJALI AYURVEDA LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Mar 12, 2020)

ORDER 1. This report dated 13.12.2018, had been received from the above Applicant i.e. the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that a reference was received on 08.06.2018 by the above Applicant from the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, to conduct a detailed investigation under Rule 129 of the above Rules, in respect of the supplie...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHRI HIMANSHU SHARMA vs. M/S. NY CINEMAS LLP


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Mar 12, 2020)

ORDER 1. The present Report dated 12.09.2019 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 case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application in which it was alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rates on “Services by way of admission to exhibition of cinematograph films where pric...
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)).