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

  12,927 Results

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 30.06.2020 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner firm under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been rejected on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 27.06.2019 under section 73(9) of the GST Act passed by the assessing authority was never served upon the petitioner firm. He submits that the said ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner which is stated to be a firm engaged in the business of organizing events, activities, conferences and seminars, is aggrieved by the non extension of the period of registration granted to it by Ext.P1 registration certificate under the GST Act. It is stated that as a casual trader, it had obtained Ext.P1 registration for the period from 25.2.2020 to 31.03.2020, and during the said period, the petitioner had conducted certain events in the course of his business. During the said...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. On 01st September, 2020 this Court had passed the following order:- “The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of outstanding IGST amount of ₹ 7,61,176/- paid on the shipping bill dated 24th March, 2018 either manually through RTGS or cheque. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner had discharged IGST liability of ₹ 21,...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 notice and Ext.P9 order demanding tax and penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act. On a perusal of Ext.P8 notice and Ext.P9 order, it is seen that the detention of the vehicle was on the ground that the consignment was not accompanied by a valid e-way bill. I, therefore, find that the detention cannot be said to be unjustified. Taking note of the request of the petitioner for permission to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnish...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner, who is stated to be a driver by profession and the registered owner of the goods carriage vehicle that was detained by the 3 rd respondent in terms of Section 129 of the GST Act, alleges that the detention was not justified since it was for reasons totally unconnected with the vehicle, and had more to do with incomplete information furnished by the consignor of the goods. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order passed by the respondents, I find that the goods have been detained on...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner is a partnership firm, a registered dealer in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’). Regular returns of turnover are being filed computing the tax payable after setting off Input Tax Credit (ITC) as against the output tax liability. The ITC claimed is the cumulative amount of Central (CGST), State (SGST) and Intra-state (IGST). 2. Monthly returns were filed for the period August 2017 to December 2017 in the GS...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

ANIKET EXPORTS vs. UNION OF INDIA


(Gujarat High Court | Oct 6, 2020)

1 We have heard Ms. Megha Patel, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Parth Divyeshvar, learned counsel for the respondent department. 2 By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – M/s. Aniket Exports has prayed for appropriate directions to the respondent to forthwith grant refund of IGST paid on export by the petitioner from August 2017 along with appropriate interest on such refund amount. 3 Apparently, the refund was...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. J.J. ENTERPRISES vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND


(Jharkhand High Court | Oct 6, 2020)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to leaned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3- Bharti Airtel Limited through Video Conferencing. Petitioner approached this Court on issuance of notice bearing Reference No. 2469, dated 4.5.2018 (Annexure-8) by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur intimating discrepancy in the return sub...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
M/s. Rising International Company (legal name, Kailashkumar), Madurai, the petitioner herein, is a dealer registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act. It imports toys from China. It also purchases goods from Delhi-based dealers. The dealer's specific stand is that returns till the month of March, 2020 have been filed and there are no arrears. On account of the lock down restrictions issued in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, the business was shut down since April 2020. Following the par...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition. (B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order under Section 129 in Form GST MOV 06 dated 10.08.2020 as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and uncon...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


27
Apr
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
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)