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

  13,115 Results

This Writ Appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 26.05.2021 made in W.P.No.11284 of 2021. 2.The said Writ Petition was filed by the respondent herein, challenging the order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act” for brevity). The respondent contended that the allegation made against them that they have fraudulently availed input tax credit on fictitious invoices to discharge the GST liabil...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SPICEJET LIMITED vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER AND OTHERS


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Aug 17, 2021)

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice bearing No. 1273, ETO/W-1/GGM (North) dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P1) to discharge its statutory tax dues, or in alternate direct the respondent No.3 to provide installment facility to the petitioner to clear its tax liabilities. 2. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the operations of the petitioner were curtailed not only because of pandemic but al...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The present writ appeals are arising out of a common order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4241/2021 and other connected matters. 2. Number of cases were preferred on the same issue and the matter was adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.18/2020 and connected matters decided on 23/2/2021. The Division Bench in paragraph-49 to 56 has held as under: “49. In this context, it would also be useful to place reliance on the judgments reli...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SAURABH KUMAR JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER


(Rajasthan High Court | Aug 16, 2021)

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with Complaint File No. DGGI/INV/GST/2063/2020-Gr.G-O/o-ADGDGGI- ZU-Jaipur dated 20.12.2020 for the offence(s) under Section(s) 132(1)(B)(C) (F) (I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section 5 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity “the Act of 2017). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been implica...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed primarily challenging the final order dated 12th March, 2021 passed by National Anti-profiteering Authority (for short NAPA) whereby it has been held that M/s Dough Makers India Pvt. Ltd. has profiteered to the extent of ₹ 78,41,754/-. The petitioner also prays for a direction to NAPA to drop the proceedings against the Petitioner as a Respondent in the case of DGAP & Ors. Vs M/...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
ORDER Reading of the impugned order shows that in para 5, the Counsel for the Department did not answer the questions posed by the Court, i.e., in what manner is three times the monthly SGST tax taken to be the principal and 100% penalty imposed. This is apparent from para 5. Learned Counsel now contends that there is an explanation for the same but the matter was disposed of on the first date itself and possibly the Counsel could not assist the Court. Aforesaid being the position...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

BRIGHT STEELS vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER


(Madras High Court | Aug 13, 2021)

In all these writ petitions, the issue raised herein is one and the same, as impugned assessment orders passed by the revenue against the petitioner Assessee for four Assessment years, that is, from 2017-18 to 2020-21, are under challenge, and by consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, all these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2.As against the impugned order of assessment dated 05.02.2021, though there is an appeal provided un...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SANJAY GARG vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Aug 13, 2021)

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. 2. This Application U/S 482 has been filed seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut whereby Magistrate has taken cognizance of Complaint Case No. 9691 of 2021 under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goo...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority, asserting that the said order, though dated 14.10.2020, was received by them only on 12.07.2021. The petitioner says that even though, in Ext.P2 Memorandum of Appeal, the grounds for the challenge of the assessment were specifically pleaded, none of them have been considered by the Appellate Authority, while Ext.P3 order has been issued. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P3 be set aside and...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner is before this Court seeking to cancel the bail granted by this Court to the respondent / accused vide order dated 11.06.2020 in Crl.P.No.2419/2020. 2. Heard Sri.Neeralagi Jeevanbabu Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Kamath, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent was granted conditional order of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated ...
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


11
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
11 May

☑ Monthly | GSTR-1

GSTR-1 for the m/o Apr 2025 (Monthly Taxpayers) - N.No. 83/2020.

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)).