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

ARAVALI POLYART (P) LTD.


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | May 30, 2019)

At the outset, we would like to make it clear that provisions of both the Central GST Act, 2017 and Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 are same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the Central GST Act, 2017 would also mean a reference to the same provisions under Rajasthan GST Act, 2017. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘CG...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SOFT TURF,


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka | May 30, 2019)

M/s. Soft Turf, (herein after called as the ‘Applicant’), having its registered office at Shed No.1, Plot No.17, Jigani KIADB Industrial Area, 1st Phase, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru 560105, having GSTIN number 29ADQPG3404P1Z2, has filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act, 2017, KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of ₹ 10,000/- (CGST ₹ 5,000/- & KGST-₹ 5,000/-). ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

UNION OF INDIA vs. SAPNA JAIN AND ORS.


(Supreme Court | May 29, 2019)

ORDER SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4322-4324/2019, Diary No. 15477/201 9 and SLP(Crl.) No. 4546/2019 Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. As different High Courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by this Court. Hence, the notice. As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (L) No. 2230 of 2018) on 06.2.2018 as well as 24.2.2018. Issue notice of writ petition as well as stay petition to the respondents. Meantime, the respondents are directed to provisionally entertain the GST TRAN-2 and other returns of the petitioner either by way of opening the portal ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER Heard Mr. Sameer Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has challenged the jurisdiction of the U.P. State Officers/Authorities (respondent No.3) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in seizing the consignment of goods which were going from Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) to Bihar. He has also challenged the authority of respondent No.3 who has adjudicated th...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the respondent as illegal and without jurisdiction. Ext.P1 is an order of detention made under Section 129 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Ext.P2 is a notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act. The petitioner contends that the subject matter of Exts.P1 and P2 is fully compliant with all the requirements of the Act but the petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate at the time of inspection or within the time given by the authoriti...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. This Report dated 06.11.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2, 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 present case are that an application dated 05.04.2018 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by the Applicant No. 1 alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of a flat in the Respondent...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The present Report dated 28.09.2018, has been received from the Applicant No. 2, the Directorate 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 the Kerala State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering vide the minutes of its meeting held on 08.05.2018 had referred the present case to the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, alleging profiteering by the R...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. This Report dated 28.11.2018, has been received from the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the Uttar Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-profiteering, vide the minutes of its meeting held on 25.04.201d had forwarded an application dated 04.01.2018 filed by the Applicant No. 1 and 2 (here-in-after referred to as the Applicants) to the Standing Committee o...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (REGIONAL OFFI..


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | May 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


20
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)).