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

  12,949 Results

KARMA BUILDCON


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Gujrat | Mar 8, 2021)

At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and SGST Act, 2017 are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the SGST Act. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Central Good...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

NOVOZYMES SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Gujrat | Mar 8, 2021)

The appellant M/s. Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd., Survey No.56/1, Baska-Rameshwara Road, Vaseti Village Tajpura Post, Halol taluka, Panchmahals, Gujarat, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and are registered under the SGST/CGST/IGST Act. They have submitted that they are engaged in supply of bio fertilizers in the State of Gujarat. 2. The appellant had filed an application before the Authority on 13.07.2018 seeking ruling on the classification of bio fertilizers name...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ECO WOOD PRIVATE LIMITED


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala | Mar 8, 2021)

1. The appeal stands flied under section 100(1) of the GST Act, 2017 by M/s. Eco Wood Pvt. Ltd. bearing GSTIN 32AAACE6807G1Z0 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant also). The appellant is proposing to get engaged in the manufacture and export of Coir Mats/flooring with Vinyl (PVC) backing (impugned products). Brief facts of the case 2. The appellant has sought for advance ruling in order to get clarity regarding the impugned product. The Advance ruling was sought for in following ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner entered into a contract with Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board for laying Under Ground Sewerage works for Karaikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District. An agreement was entered into between them on 25.01.2016. It is seen from the contract that quotation given by the petitioner was...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order of rejection of refund dated March 2, 2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Park Street Division. The case of the petitioner is that this order of rejection was passed without granting any hearing to him. Counsel on behalf of the revenue submits that by a letter dated December 18, 2019, certain deficiencies in the application filed unde...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Swarnavel, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2.Though the impugned orders dated 28.11.2020 and 21.11.2020 passed by the first respondent in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'Act') have been challenged on various grounds, the sole ground that is urged before me is the lack of opportunity extended to the petitioner prior to passing of the...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO..


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka | Mar 8, 2021)

PROCEEDINGS (Under Section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the KGST Act, 2017) 1. At the outset we would like to make it clear that the provisions of CGST, Act 2017 and SGST, Act 2017 are in pari materia and have the same provisions in like matter and differ from each other only on a few specific provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is particularly made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisio...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned AGP for the respondents-State. 2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and correctness of five identical orders all dated 26.06.2020 passed by respondent No.4 for five quarters covering the period from April, 2018 to June, 2019 rejecting the refund claims made by the petitioner in respect of unutilized input tax credit. 3. P...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The petitioners were dealers registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Following the implementation of GST Regime with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners filed form TRAN-1 declarations. However, the Input Tax Credit available to them was not carried forward in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioners have been submitting representations right from 30th January 2019. The Nodal Officer at the Divisional Level forwarded ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The petitioners were the registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 under the State Government. Following the implementation of GST Regime on 01.07.2017, the petitioners had to make the necessary migration. It is seen from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers that they had filed the requisite Form TRAN 1 declarations. Unfortunately, ITC available to them was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Ther...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


30
Apr
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
30 Apr

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

Last date for opt-in / opt-out QRMP Scheme for quarter Apr - June 2025 (Rule 61A)