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

  12,922 Results

LANDMARK CARS PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER


(Gujarat High Court | Jun 14, 2024)

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas waives service of notice of rule for the respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside detention order dated 11.01.2020 passed in Form GST MOV-6 and...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Uchit N. Sheth for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Utkarsh Sharma and learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti for the respondents. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Utkarsh Sharma and learned advocate Ms.Hetvi Sancheti waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass and with the consent of the l...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER An order dated 30.04.2024 is assailed on the ground that the order is unreasoned and disregards the petitioner's replies. 2. The petitioner was a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Upon receipt of a show cause notice dated 27.12.2023, the petitioner filed replies on 13.03.2024, 03.04.2024 and 29.04.2024. The impugned order was issued thereafter on 30.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply dated 03.04.2024 and pointed out ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
JUDGMENT R. SURESH KUMAR, J. This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court, dated 04.04.2024 in W.P. (MD) No.8574 of 2024. 2. The assessment order was questioned before the writ Court. However, the learned Single Judge, through the impugned order dated 04.04.2024, has not entertained the writ petition, mainly on the ground that against the order of assessment, the assessee/dealer has an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent on 22.12.2023, whereby, totally a sum of Rs. 3,00,626/- has been confirmed against the petitioner towards the tax liability, interest payable thereof and penalty imposed. The tax liability alone comes out ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER PER An order dated 27.05.2024 by which the petitioner's goods were detained and penalty was imposed is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of supplying natural food ingredients solutions. The petitioner states that it was conferred the status of '4 Star Export House' by the Director General of Foreign Trade and was issued with an 'Authorised Economic Operator Certificate'. Upon importing 16 metric tonnes of...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2017-18 under the provisions of respective GST enactments, 2017. 3. The impugned order precedes a notice in GST DRC 01A dated 25.09.2023, show cause notice in GST DRC 01 dated 29.09.2023 and three personal hearing notices issued to the petitioner on ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

REKHA. S vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHENNAI


(Madras High Court | Jun 13, 2024)

ORDER This writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the late M.K.Girish. The petitioners asserts that the order impugned here in was issued against a dead person. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the death certificate and points out that the petitioner's brother died on 25.02.2021, where as the impugned order was issued on 29.04.2024. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners herein paid CGST of Rs. 1,71,216/- and SGST of Rs. 1,71,216/- by cash on 01....
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
COMMON ORDER Heard Mr. A.Satheesh Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. By this common order, both the writ petitions are being disposed of. 3. In these writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 dated 03.05.2024 and 06.05.2024. 4. The case of the petitioner is that although intimation in DRC-01A and DRC 01 was issued, ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER An order in original dated 05.10.2023 is challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. By asserting that the petitioner had entrusted GST compliances to an auditor and that such auditor was unwell, the present writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposal pertains to alleged mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns and the auto populated...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


26
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)