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

  12,927 Results

ORDER Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State has produced before us the copy of the order dated 14.4.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-XI, Commercial Tax, Kanpur withdrawing the seizure notice under Section 129(1) of the U.P.GST Act and penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, which is taken on record. In view of above, no cause of action survives to the petitioner and the petition is rendered infructuous. Writ petition stands dismisse...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner’s grievance is with respect to the respondents’ refusal to grant it the facility of exemption from payment of customs levy for the goods imported solely for the purpose of fulfilling export obligations. The petitioner was issued advance authorisations under the extant Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The petitioner contends that the prevailing exemptions under the custom notifications, could not have been denied merely on the premise of the introduction of a new levy u...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

TEESTA DISTRIBUTORS vs. STATE OF KERALA


(Kerala High Court | Apr 13, 2018)

1. This case raises an important question on the scope of exercise of power by a State invoking its police power as well as tax regime to interfere with the sale of other State lotteries. 2. The State of Kerala is not a lottery free zone, means to say that, there is no prohibition of sale of lottery. The first petitioner is a distributor of lottery, organised and conducted by the Government of Mizoram. In this writ petition, the petitioners highlight grievance regarding interference of sa...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4, Dr. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of seizure under section 129(1) as well as imposition of tax and penalty under section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MOHD. YUNUSH vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Apr 13, 2018)

Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-Nagar Nigam, Saharanpur and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. The petitioner who has entered into a contract upon an auction for realisation of ground rent from a Fair commencing from 31st August, 2017 for a month, has assailed the recovery certificate issued to him for deposit of Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as "G.S.T."...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in manufacture and supply as well as export of industrial SS Tube, fittings and pipe fittings etc. The petitioner is registered under the provision of GST. The petitioner's office is situated at Industrial Area Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. An order has been received by the petitioner from one M/s Kansara Laljibhai Mohanlal, 7, Parsana Society, R.K. Watch Stree, 50 Feet Road, Rajkot, Gujarat for s...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for the State of U.P. The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods vide impugned order dated 29.03.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.G.S.T.). The submission is that as admittedly the seized goods were in transit from outside the State the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

METAL HANDICRAFTS vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Apr 12, 2018)

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Petitioner is unit of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered under the U.P. VAT Act with effect from 01.04.2011. After the enforcement of the GST with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner was required to generate a user ID and password for migration from VAT to GST and for t...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
In terms of the provisions contained in the Goods and Services Tax Statutes brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who have migrated to the GST regime, should have uploaded FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time stipulated to avail input tax credit in respect of their old stock. It is stated by the petitioners that all of them have though attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time limit stipulated, they could not complete the process...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by J.H. Khan appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that in view of Section 173 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 172 and Sections 192 and 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 are omitted and, thus, the respondent-Municipal Corporation, is vested with no power to levy advertisement tax and it is only GST...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


27
Apr
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
28 Apr

☑ Monthly | GSTR-11

GSTR-11 for the m/o Mar 2025 (Statement of inward supplies by persons having Unique Identification Number (UIN)).

30 Apr

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

Last date for opt-in / opt-out QRMP Scheme for quarter Apr - June 2025 (Rule 61A)