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

  13,343 Results

ORDER Subject to the writ petitioner securing the amount which is required to be paid as pre-deposit to the appropriate authority for the purpose of hearing in terms of section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of fortnight from date, the matter shall be heard on its merit upon filing of affidavits. Let counter affidavit be filed within a fortnight from the date of making payment of pre-deposit in terms of this order and rejoinder affidavit, th....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHRI SANJAY DEWAN, SH. KRISHNA, SH. MUNESH CHANDRA.. vs. M/S. VATIKA LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 2, 2019)

ORDER 1. The present Report dated 19.06.2019 has been received from the Applicant No. 12 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Haryana State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering, had forwarded an application dated 28.09.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 o....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AJAY HARDWARE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Nov 29, 2019)

Present Review Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Union of India (respondent No. 1), seeking review of the final judgment and order dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Court, whereby the afore-mentioned writ petition alongwith a bunch of connected petitions was allowed and the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to file Form 'TRAN-1' by the extended date. The primary thrust of the ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner is a club which was holding a service tax registration during the pre-GST period. Subsequent to the implementation of GST with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner had sought for permission to migrate to the GST regime as provided under Section 25 of the CGST Act. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was also allotted a provisional GSTIN. Thereafter, since it was not able to complete the registration process during the time granted by the department, the provisional GST....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal | Nov 29, 2019)

The Applicant has taken on lease premises on the second floor of Block C, City Centre, New Town, Rajarhat for the purpose of supplying of food from its restaurant, along with eating facility and ambience and other amenities. According to the agreement with M/s. Ganesh Realty and Mall Development Pvt Ltd (hereinafter the Licensor) the Applicant is required to pay the rent, security charges, and maintenance charges and the applicable GST. The Licensor raises separate invoices in relation to ren....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. EX-SERVICEMEN RESETTLEMENT SOCIETY


(Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal | Nov 29, 2019)

Preamble A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called 'the GST Act'), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such further t....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Nov 28, 2019)

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of High Court of Orissa: Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 20463 of 2018 titled M/s Safari Retreats Private Limited and another vs Chief Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax and others decided on 17.04.2019. Notice of motion for 12.12.2019. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-State of Haryana. Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate for Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate has p....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MAHMMADBHAI PIRABHAI SADHRIYAT vs. UNION OF INDIA


(Gujarat High Court | Nov 28, 2019)

1. By these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the common orderin- original dated 1st November, 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara-II (hereinafter referred to as the “adjudicating authority”) whereby, he has ordered confiscation of the vehicles which are subject matter of the petitions and given the petitioners an option of redemption on payment of redemption fine as stipulat....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The challenge in the writ petition is to Exts.P8 and P11 detention notices issued to the petitioner detaining goods that were transported at the instance of the petitioner. A perusal of Exts.P8 and P11 notices would indicate that the goods belonging to the petitioner, and covered by Exts.P1 and P1(a) invoices, were detained for an alleged discrepancy noticed in respect of the Eway bill raised in connection with Ext.P1 invoice. I note however that the discrepancy noticed is with regard to the ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER 1. The present Report dated 21.02.2019 and the supplementary Reports dated 15.04.2019 and 30.05.2019 have been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 12.06.2018 filed before the Tamil Nadu State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 (2) of the CGST ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


  Hide
29
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S