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

  13,379 Results

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

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


  Hide
31
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S