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

  13,262 Results

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: “17A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, thereby quashing and setting aside letters dated ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “7(a) To quash and set aside the Show-Cause Notice dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent no.3. (b) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, t...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SARYU BABU ENGINEER INDIA PVT. LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

PROCEEDING OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING U/S. 98 OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Sub:- GST ACT, 2017 - Advance Ruling U/s 98 - liability to tax under GST Act in respect to application dated 27.11.2019 from M/s. Saryu Babu Engineer India Pvt Ltd, C-51, K-Park, Mahanagar, Lucknow, U.P.- 226 024   Order- Reg. 1) M/s. Saryu Babu Engineer India Pvt Ltd, C-51, K-Park, Mahanagar, Lucknow, U.P.- 226 024 (here in after called the applicant) is a registered assessee unde...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SARYU BABU ENGINEERS FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

PROCEEDING OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING UIS. 98 OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Sub:- GST ACT, 2017 - Advance Ruling U/ s 98 - liability to tax under GST Act in respect to application dated 28.11.2019 from M/S Saryu Babu Engineers For Resource Development, C-51, K-Park, Mahanagar, Lucknow, U.P.- 226 024 - Order- Reg. 1) M/s. Saryu Babu Engineers For Resource Development, C-51, K-Park, Mahanagar, Lucknow, U.P.- 226 024 (here in after called the applicant) is a registered...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RISHABH GARG RAGHAV GARG HUF


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

PROCEEDING OF THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING U/S. 98 OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Sub:- GST ACT, 2017 - Advance Ruling U/ s 98 - liability to tax under GST Act in respect to application dated 05.12.2019 from M/s. Rishabh Garg Raghav Garg HUF (6X), 14C, Panki Industrial Area, Site No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208 022- Order- Reg. 1) M/s. Rishabh Garg Raghav Garg HUF (6X), 14C, Panki Industrial Area, Site No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208 022 ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

NEVA PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ACSTE-CUM-PROPER OFFICER NORTH ENFORCEMENT ZONE PA..


(First Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

1. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods & Service Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as HPGST and CGST Act respectively) are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the HPGST Act would also mean a reference to the corresponding similar provisions under the CGST Act and vice versa. ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITED vs. ACST& E (PROPER OFFICER) CIRCLE MALL ROAD, THE MAL..


(First Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods & Service Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as HPGST and CGST/HPGST Act respectively) are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the HPGST Act would also mean a reference to the corresponding similar provisions under the CGST/HPGST Act. 1. Since th...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD. vs. ACST & E -CUM-PROPER OFFICER CIRCLE BADDI


(First Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh | Feb 11, 2020)

1. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods & Service Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as HPGST and CGST Act respectively) are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the HPGST Act would also mean a reference to the corresponding similar provisions under the CGST Act. 2. This appeal has b...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner/assessee is against the unilateral appropriation of a part of refundable amount in terms of the impugned FORM-GST-RFD-06 dated 13.06.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, to the arguable dues of other Assessment Year/s. 2. Learned Asst. Solicitor General of India, Shri C Shashikantha, on request having accepted notice for the respondents resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. 3. Having heard t...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The Writ Petitioners are again before this Court, contending that there are some inadvertent errors in the common judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (T) No. 77 of 2019 and connected cases, which necessitates review. 2. The contention of the Petitioners is that though the matter was heard exhaustively on different dates, some of the issues and vital submissions made in this regard were inadvertently lost sight of while passing this judgment. The specific cas...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


21
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
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)).