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

  13,343 Results

ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwa, learned standing counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:- "A-Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.2.2022 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no. 3 in gross violation of principles of natural justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issui....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MADDI SEETHA DEVI


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana | Jul 13, 2022)

1. M/s. Maddi Seetha Devi, A-28, 2nd Floor, Journalist Colony, Plot No.70 Jublee hills, Hyderabad Telangana- 500 033 (36ADQPM2479L1ZS) has filed an application in FORM GST ARA-01 under Section 97(1) of TGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST/TGST Rules. 2. At the outset, it is made clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the TGST Act are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to any dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CG....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARA..


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttarakhand | Jul 13, 2022)

PROCEEDINGS 1. This is an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 and Uttarakhand State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST/SGST Act) and the rules made there under filed by M/s State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal Ltd., (SIDCUL), 2911E, IT Park, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001 (herein after referred to as the “applicant”) and registered with GSTIN - 05A....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SANJAY MUKESHBHAI PATEL vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Jul 13, 2022)

1. The petition is preferred seeking the directions of issuance of writ of habeas corpus for the respondent no.6 – brother of the present petitioner, allegedly illegally confined by the GST Officer – respondent no.2 since 18.03.2022. The respondent no.6 is the real brother of the petitioner and is engaged professionally as tax consultant. He also works in relation to the license. The petitioner and his brother both reside together. 2. It is averred by the petitioner that a rai....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
2. Since both these writ applications are interconnected and common issue is involved, as such both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(T) No. 2762 of 2021 is with respect to the Tax period from April 2018 to March 2019 whereas W.P.(T) No. 2798 of 2021 is with respect to the Tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. 3. The writ applications have been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside show cause notices, both dated 23.07.2020, (Ann....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to set aside and quash the order dated December 3, 2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bureau of Investigation being the 2nd respondent herein and to refund the amount excessively debited from the Electronic Credit Ledger Account of the petitioner on March 7, 2022. 2. Mr. Choraria, learned Advocate for the petitioner upon instructions from his client submits that he has instructions not to press the r....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to command the respondent to set aside the order of demand of tax and penalty dated March 9, 2022. The petitioner No.1 claims to carry on the business under the name and style of M/s. Hemraj Infrastructure. The petitioner No.1 is the registered tax payer under the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act (for short WBGST 2017 Act). The petitioner no.1 claims to have engaged the petitioner no.2 on hire basis for transportation o....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

VAIBHAV GHANSHYAMBHAI PRAGADA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Jul 12, 2022)

COMMON ORAL ORDER 1. Both these applications arises out of the one and same proceedings, they were heard together and therefore, same have been decided by this common order. 2. The applicants have filed present applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in connection with the offences registered under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’ for short, in File No. : DGGI/INV/GST/....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

CRESCENT BUILDERS


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala | Jul 12, 2022)

1. M/s. Crescent Builders (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) is a Partnership firm engaged in the development and construction of residential apartments in the State of Kerala. 2. At the outset, it is clarified that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act) and the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as KSGST Act) are the same except for certain provisions. Accordingly, a reference herein....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Sri Bhasker Reddy Vemireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes and with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 17.11.2021 as illegal, improper, incorrect and violative of principles of natural justice. 3. The facts in issue show that the petitioner is ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


  Hide
29
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S