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

M/S. JVS FOODS PVT. LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | Nov 28, 2019)

Note: Under Section 100 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, an appeal against this ruling lies before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling constituted under section 99 of CGST/RGST Act, 2017, within a period of 30 days from the date of service of this order. At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the RGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a re....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. ALISHA FOODS


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Madhya Pradesh | Nov 28, 2019)

PROCEEDINGS (Under sub-section (4) of Section 98 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Madhya Pradesh Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017) 1. The present application has been filed u/s 97 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and MP Goods and services Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to CGST Act and SGST Act respectively) by M/s. ALISHA FOODS (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant), registered under the Goods & Services Tax. 2. The provisions ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, whereby, the goods belonging to the petitioner were detained along with the vehicles on the ground that the E-way Bill did not indicate the correct number of the vehicle that was carrying the goods. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent E-way Bill showing the correct number of the vehicle was not available at the time of detention but was produced before the authorities immediately ther....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. At the outset, it is pointed out that in the above noted petitions, Sanjeev Narula, J. appeared as Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) at the initial stage on 21.03.2018, 09.04.2018 and thereafter till 15.05.2018. However, the matters were not heard during that period. Learned counsel for the parties state that they have no objection if this Bench takes up these matters. Accordingly, we proceed and deal with the same. 2. The Petitioners’ grievance in all the petitions is w....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (writ petitioner). 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary. On 1st July 2017, the implementation of GST regime in India commenced. On 30th November 2017, the first respondent filed its Form GST TRAN-1. On the same day, the form wasamended by the first respondent. However, the first respondent did not mention the quantity of the goods held in stock in C....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, by which the goods belonging to the petitioner, were detained by the 3rd respondent, and a tax and penal liability determined by the said respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the transaction in question involved a sale from the vendor in Gujarat, to the purchaser in Uttarakhand, and pursuant to the instructions received from the purchaser, the goods were consigned to a destination in Trivandrum. The tax invoice i....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1.Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this case, after the conveyance in question came to be detained, Form GST MOV-01 came to be issued which indicates that the conveyance in question was accompanied by both invoice as well as e-way bill. 2.It is submitted that thereafter, Form GST MOV-02 came to be issued for physical verification and a physical verification report in Form GST MOV-04 came to be issued which indicates that no discrepancy was found dur....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER 1. This Report dated 03.04.2019 and the supplementary Report dated 30.05.2019 has 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 that vide his application dated 06.04.2018 submitted the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 12B (2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applic....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 22.10.2019 issued by the respondent No.6 at Annexure-A whereby the request of the petitioner for filing the TRAN-1 extending the period provided under 117 read with Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [‘Act’ for short] has been rejected. 2. The issue involved herein is no more res integra in view of the order of this Court dated 19.11.2019 in W.P.No.33290/2019 and Connected Matters, whereby....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MR. GOPIRUATH DOMBLA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PRO.. vs. NAVKAR ASSOCIATES


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Nov 26, 2019)

ORDER 1. The present Report dated 07 D6.2019 has 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 present case are that the Maharashtra State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering had forwarded an application dated 17.04,2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 to the Standing Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


  Hide
29
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S