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

  12,903 Results

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOA.. vs. RAJ & COMPANY


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide his Report dated 08.08.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the customers by way of commensurate reduction in the price of the product “Gamier Nat Shade 3” as per the provisions of Section 171 (1) of...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KERALA STATE SCREENING COMMITTEE ON ANTI-PROFITEER.. vs. DEV SNACKS CHERIYELA


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 04.12.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on to his recipients, the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax of GST w.e.f. 27.11.2017 from 12% to 5% in r...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RAHUL SHARMA AND OTHERS vs. CLOUDTAIL INDIA PVT. LTD


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 19.09.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on to his recipients, the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax of GST w.e.f. 15.11.2017 from 28% to 18% in ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KERALA STATE SCREENING COMMITTEE ON ANTI-PROFITEER.. vs. WIN WIN APPLIANCES


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 13.11.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent on the supply of “Matchless Plus TTWG Grinder” had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax from...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 02.04.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of rate reduction to the above Applicant as well as other customers as per the provisions of Se...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

PAWAN SHARMA DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING.. vs. SHARMA TRADING COMPANY


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 16.03.2018, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicant No. 1 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax to the above Applicant by way of commensurate reduction in the ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SANTOSH KUMARI AND OTHERS vs. ASTER INFRAHOME PVT. LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 28.02.2019, furnished to this Authority under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, had submitted that he had conducted an investigation on the complaint of the Applicants No. 1 to 12 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicants as well as other home buyer...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, CENTRAL BOA.. vs. CAROA PROPERTIES LLP


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 08.06.2020 has been received from the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after a detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that the DGAP vide order No. 78/2019 dated 24.12.2019 passed by this Authority in the matter of M/s Caroa Properties LLP versus Potnoor Naveen was directed under rule 133 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to cond...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

MOOL CHAND MITTAL, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFIT.. vs. ELAN LTD


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Dec 11, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 23.03.2020 has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) after detailed investigation under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the case are that an application was filed under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purchase of Shop No. GF-0131-A, in the Respondent...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

TULSIRAM FOOD PRODUCTS


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh | Dec 11, 2020)

1. M/s. Tulsiram Food Products, Khasra No. 3279, Near Nadarganj, Ancillary Estate, Amausi, Lucknow-226008, (here in after referred to as the applicant) is a registered assessee under GST having GSTN: 09AAPFT2102F1ZB. 2. The applicant is engaged in manufacturing and supply of “Namkeen” duly sealed & packed in printed pouches containing the details of the manufacturer. The applicant also plans to manufacture and sell raw extruded stick (when fried becomes similar to kurkure)...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


25
Apr
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
25 Apr

☑ Half-Yearly | ITC-04

ITC-04 for the half year (Oct - Mar 2025) (For taxpayers > 5 Cr. Turnover) - Rule 45.

☑ Annual | ITC-04

ITC-04 for complete FY 2024-25 (For taxpayers <= 5 Cr. Turnover) - Rule 45.

28 Apr

☑ Monthly | GSTR-11

GSTR-11 for the m/o Mar 2025 (Statement of inward supplies by persons having Unique Identification Number (UIN)).

30 Apr

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

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