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

  13,131 Results

The 2nd respondent had issued a tender notice through Tender Enquiry No.11.1B/APMSIDC/2021-22, dated 15.07.2021 requesting for provision of Sick New Born Care Units (SNCUs) at CHCs, AH, MCHs and DHs in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner had submitted its tender document on 31.07.2021 after complying with all the required formalities. The tender evaluation process was to be done in two stages, i.e., technical bid and financial bid. The procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent was that after prelimi...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Before this Court ventures into the actual controversy, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, certain references, to the relevant provisions becomes imminent to be considered, which deals with the aspect of cancellation or suspension of the registration, particularly, that as contained under Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is extracted hereunder :- “29. Cancellation [or suspension] of registration. [(1) The proper off...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RANJANA ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Madras High Court | Sep 21, 2021)

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 17.09.2021, which reads as follows: ' Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listings on 01.09.2021, 02.09.2021 and 15.09.2021, which read as follows: 'Proceedings dated 01.09.2021 There is no representation for the writ petitioner. 2. Ms.G.Shankardevi, learned counsel representing Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Stand...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHRI TYRES vs. STATE TAX OFFICER


(Madras High Court | Sep 21, 2021)

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in previous listing on 17.09.2021, which reads as follows: 'At request, list on Tuesday (21.09.2021) under the caption 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION'.' 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, captioned writ petition and writ miscellaneous petition therein have been listed in the cause list caption 'ADJOURNED ADMISSION' today. 3. Mr.Adithya Reddy, learned counsel for writ petitioner who w...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

UTTAM CATERS vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS


(Madhya Pradesh High Court | Sep 21, 2021)

The present petition has been filed by M/s Uttam Caters through its Proprietor Uttam Singh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 17.6.2021 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No.3. He has further prayed for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application of revocation in the light of amendment made in Section 30 of the GST Act, 2017 and the Circular dated 18.5.2021. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.6.2021 whereby h...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

JHAS INDUSTRIES vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Sep 21, 2021)

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 6. However, Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State (GST) Authorities are present. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 6 to rectify the mistake in the GSTIN allocated to the petitioner by the GSTN. In short, undisputedly the facts as they emerge upon the ple...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Ms. Apeksha, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Present petition has been filed for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus reading down the proviso to Section 129(1) of the Central GST Act providing that no order of detention or seizure of goods or conveyance shall be passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petiti...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Shri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State. In response to our order dated 31.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel says that date and time of personal appearing is mentioned in show cause notice, which is sent online, when the Assessing Officer deems it fit to grant personal hearing and is of the opinion that some records may have to be produced, which was not done in this case. He says that th...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, who is on caveat, and carefully perused the record. These transfer petitions have been filed by the Union of India under Article 139A read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking transfer of two Writ Petitions to this Court, i.e., (i) Writ P...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KAKKIRALA RAMESH


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana | Sep 20, 2021)

1. M/s. Kakkirala Ramesh, Survey No 56 64, Behind Janata Hotel, Gouraram Village, Wargal Mandal, Medak, Telangana - 502279 (GSTIN No. 36ABXPK8604N1ZS) 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 ref...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


13
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
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)).