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
Text Search option

  13,223 Results

O R D E R Petitioners have challenged the order of confiscation issued by the respondent in Form GST VIG- 10 under Section 130(1), (2) and 122 (1)(ii) and (iv) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) dated 29.01.2019 as illegal, seeking all consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioners are claiming to be the consignee and transporter of the goods in question. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent has detained the go...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 14, 2019)

PROCEEDINGS (under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has be...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 14, 2019)

PROCEEDINGS (under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has be...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

C.S. DIESEL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 14, 2019)

PROCEEDINGS (Under section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act MGSST Act”] by M/s. C.S. DIESEL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following questions. 1. Please confir...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S MOHAN INFINITY


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | Mar 14, 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. The issue raised by M/s Mohan Infinity, situated at B-2, 23, Parvasi Nagar, Kedia Palace Road, Murlipura, Jaipur 302039 (hereinafter the applicant) is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under the ambit of the Section 97(2)(a)...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PRATAPGARH


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | Mar 14, 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. The issue raised by Municipal Corporation Pratapgarh, situated at Nagar Parishad office, Near Bus Stand, District-Pratapgarh, Rajasthan 312605, (hereinafter the applicant) is fit to pronounce advance ruling as it falls under the am...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite parties in most arbitrary and illegal manner have detained the vehicle as well as the goods.There is no contravention of the provisions and there is no evasion of tax. The driver of the vehicle was carrying the genuine documents which are not controverted, as such the vehicle cannot be detained. Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties agrees that it is not the case of the opposite parties ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SPACEAGE SYNTEX PVT. LTD.


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Mar 13, 2019)

PROCEEDINGS (under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to the same provisions under the MGST Act. The present appeal has be...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHIVA WRITING COMPANY PVT. LTD.


(Authority for Advance Ruling, West Bengal | Mar 13, 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 furth...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition seeking quashing and setting aside of summons issued by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Jaipur and Alwar and a further prayer that the authorities be directed not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director of M/s Leel Electricals Limited, Petitioner No.2. The Central Goods And Service Tax Department conducted ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


18
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)).