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

The petitioner, a transporter registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as 'CGST Act') and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as 'IGST Act') was engaged by M/s. Venkataramana Traders, a registered supplier in Karnataka (henceforth referred to as the "Supplier") to transport 300 bags of arecanut to a recipient registered dealer in Delhi, M/s. Gulli Enterprises (henceforth referred to as the &...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated January 3, 2020 passed by the respondent no.5., the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Tamluk Charge. The impugned order has been passed under Section 329(2) of the West Bengal Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 cancelling the petitioner’s registration under the said Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted ample opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. The impugned order cannot be held to be wi...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

RAJESH RAMA VARMA


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Tamilnadu | Aug 18, 2020)

Preamble 1. In terms of Section 102 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017/Tamilnadu Goods & Services Tax Act 2017(“the Act”, in Short), this Order may be amended by the Appellate authority so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed by the Appellate authority on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer or the applicant within a period of six ...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Perused file/notings produced by the Commissioner of CGST (Central Excise) Navi Mumbai, Commissioner-VIII. 3. Apprehending the arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in terms of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act” for short), applicants are seeking directions under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that in the event of their arr...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

M/S. MARKETTING COMMUNICATION AND ADVERTISING LIMI..


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka | Aug 18, 2020)

ORDER UNDER SECTION 98(4) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 & UNDER 98(4) OF THE KGST ACT, 2017 1. M/s. Marketing Communication & Advertising Limited, 42, MCA House, 4th or, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Karnataka, Bangalore-560052, having GSTIN number 29AAACM7139D1ZI, have filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 97 of CGST Act,2017 & KGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 104 of CGST Rules 2017 & KGST Rules 2017, in form GST ARA-01 discharging the fee of ₹ 5,000/- each und...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner, who is engaged in the business in works contract, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P8 by which the 2nd respondent has awarded a works contract to the 5th respondent. 2. The petitioner is the Proprietor of Elster Electronics and is in the business of installations of street lights and connected electric amenities. The 2nd respondent- Secretary to Kavannur Grama Panchayat invited e-tenders for installation of 24W LED street lighting system as per Ext.P1. The last da...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SH. PUSHPAK CHAUHAN vs. M/S. HARISH BAKERS & CONFECTIONERS PVT. LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Aug 18, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 2 (herein-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 18.06.2018, 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 GST from 28% to 18% in respect of the two products viz. the Nestle M...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

KARAN TOSHNIWAL vs. STATE OF GUJARAT


(Gujarat High Court | Aug 18, 2020)

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Quash the press note dated 08.02.2020 at Annexure A to this petition; (b) Quash and set aside the impugned summon at Annexure Al to this petition; (c) Direct the respondents not to take any actions against the petitioner being proprietor of the M/s Karan Impex exercising powers under Section 69 read with Section 132 without following due...
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a government company, has prayed for the following reliefs: “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the petitioner pursuant to entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 (as per statement at Annexure D) along with appropriate interest on such refund; B....
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of State Goods and Services Department, Thiruvananthapuram, has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P1 complaint made against him by M/s. Bhima Enterprises, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director, before the Lok Ayukta, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Further, petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the Kerala Lok Ayukta to consider Exhibit P1 complaint in accordance with law and dispose of the same expeditiously. 3. Con...
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)