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

  13,064 Results

NUTAN WAREHOUSING COMPANY PVT. LTD.


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Dec 10, 2018)

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
In all these Petitions, individual facts are different. However, the central grievance of the Petitioners is common. The contention of all the Petitioners is that, the declarations made by them in TRAN-1 at the time of migration to the Goods and Service Tax (for short “GST”) regime, had certain errors, primarily, due to the technical glitches in the official portal of the Department. It is not in dispute that time for making declarations as per statute, has expired. ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is the purchaser of the goods and as such is the owner. The goods have been seized under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act but in the order of release, security has been demanded according to the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. Since the petitioner is the owner of the goods, we direct the authority concerned to release the goods of t...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ORSON HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA


(Gujarat High Court | Dec 7, 2018)

1. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 / Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India, to the extent the said provision restricts validity period of the e-way bill in terms of distance to be travelled in a day. 2. Mr. Vinay Shraff, learned advocate with Mr. Vishal Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners in...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

PUSHPAK CHAUHAN vs. HARISH BAKERS & CONFECTIONERS PVT. LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 7, 2018)

1. The present Report dated 18.06.2018 has been received from the Director General of Safeguards, now Director General of Anti-Profiteering (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that vide his application dated 29.11.2017 the Applicant No. 1 had complained to the Standing Committee, constituted under Rule 123 (1) of the above Rules alleging that although...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, now migrated to the Goods and Services Tax regime. To use the input tax available to his credit at the time of migration, the petitioner had to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time. He asserts that though he attempted to upload it within the time, he failed because of some system error. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to enable him to take credit of the available input tax. 2. Heard the l...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The issue arises as to whether the omission to upload e-way bill with respect to the transport of a car purchased in Puthuchery, by a person normally residing in Thiruvananthapuram, attracts Section 129 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSG&ST Act for brevity). The impugned judgment found that there should be an adjudication carried on and refused release of the vehicle. In appeal, at the admission stage, we prima facie found that there is no requirement for ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHARMA TRADING COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA


(Delhi High Court | Dec 6, 2018)

C.M. Appl. 51189/2018 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P. (C) 13194/2018 & C.M. Appl. 51190/2018 Issue notice returnable on 19th February, 2019. Counsel for the respondents present on advance notice, accepts notice. Six weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, within four weeks after service of the counter affidavit. The petitioner has an option to deposit the amount of ₹ 5,55,126/- or furnishing cer...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING vs. J.P. AND SONS


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 6, 2018)

1. This report dated 31.072018, 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 Standing Committee vide the minutes of it’s meeting dated 13.042018 had requested the DGAP to initiate investigation under Rule 129 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on the allegation that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of tax reduction from 28% to 18%, ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER In W.P.(C) No.13090 of 2018, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P6 assessment order. When the matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy. Then, the petitioner's counsel submitted that under the new tax regime-Goods and Services Tax- so far the appeal mechanism has not been put in place. Later, on instructions, the Government Pleader informed the Court that then the appellate forums for the first and se...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


8
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
10 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-7

GSTR-7 for the m/o Apr 2025 (For TDS Deductors u/s 51 - Section 39(3)).

☑ Monthly | GSTR-8

GSTR-8 for the m/o Apr 2025 [For TCS collection by E-Commerce Operators - Section 52(4)].

11 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-1

GSTR-1 for the m/o Apr 2025 (Monthly Taxpayers) - N.No. 83/2020.

13 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-5

GSTR-5 for the m/o Apr 2025 [Return by Non Resident Taxpayers - Rule 63 - Section 39(5)]

☑ Monthly | GSTR-6

GSTR-6 for the m/o Apr 2025 [For Input Service Distributors - Rule 65 & Section 39(4)].

☑ Monthly | IFF

IFF for the m/o Apr 2025 (QRMP Taxpayers, Optional) - Rule 59(2).

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)).