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

EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra | Sep 9, 2021)

(Under Section 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) The present application has been filed under section 97 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act and MGST Act” respectively] by M/s. Exide Industries Limited the applicant, seeking an advance ruling in respect of the following question. Whether ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking direction against the respondent no.1 to restore the registration of the petitioner under the Goods and Service Tax Act. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner company, which is a private limited company duly registered in Goods and Service Tax Act. Its principal place of business is at Vadodara and is having GSTIN as 24AABCN5901B1Z4. The said company is engaged in the business of manufa...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Hon'ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.) Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): "a. For issuing writ of certiorari for quashing the Summary of Order (demand order issued in FORM GST DRC 07) dated 21.03.2020 issued for the t...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Heard Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the CGST and Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the UPGST authority. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 26.02.2021, 01.04.2021 and 15.05.2021 and the notice issued on Form GST-RFD-08 dated 17.07.2021. 3. Undisputedly, vide order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-II., Commercial Tax, Jh...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RAJESH SHAW vs. UPERINTENDENT, CGST & CX AND OTHERS


(Calcutta High Court | Sep 9, 2021)

Both the parties are present. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the impugned demand notice dated 2nd March, 2020 in connection with interest under Section 50 Sub-Section (1) of the GST Act relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19 and this writ petition was filed on 19th July, 2019. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, Section 50 Sub-Section (1) of the GST Act has been amended by the Finance Act, 2021 under Section 112 of the Finance...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MULTITECH PRODUCTS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Sep 9, 2021)

Taken up through video conferencing. By this petition, the petitioner has claimed that the order directing that part of the GST refund will be set off against future demand, is wrong and the refund should be made in cash. However, he has accepted that as per Section 142 (8) (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, he can move an application for cash refund to the Authorities. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner first move an application for ca...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RSWM LIMITED


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Rajasthan | Sep 8, 2021)

At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the CGST Act and the RGST 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 provision under the RGST Act. further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of this Advance Ruling, a reference to such a similar provision under the CGS I Act / RGST Act would be mentioned as be...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept GST TRAN-1 filed manually as per Annexure-R. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the communication dated 6.9.2019 at Annexure-L and also to set aside the communication dated 24.10.2019 at Annexure-K. However, it is submitted that, if prayer (i) is considered, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the iss...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Petitioner has sought for following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No.1 to restore the credit in FORM GST PMT-2 as the petitioner has claimed credit in FORM GST TRAN-1 as per Rule 117(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 from the ITC lying in books under the repealed acts, (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any another appropriate writ or direction permitting the petitioner to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 in accordance with provis...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Learned counsel for the petitioner s Mr. Kartik Kurmy appear s along with Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocates 2. Mr. P. S. Pati, learned counsel for the CGST appears along with Mrs. Ranjana Mukherjee, advocate in both the cases. 3. At the outset, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that pursuant to the order dated 2.09.2021, appropriate order has been passed and an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent CGST...
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)).