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

  13,382 Results

SHRI M. SRINIVAS vs. M/S. INFINITY RETAIL LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Nov 2, 2020)

1. The present Report dated 23.12.2019, has been furnished by the Applicant No. 2 i.e. the Director-General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), under Rule 129 (6) of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The brief facts of the present case are that an application dated 29.03.2019 was filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering, under Rule 128 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017, by the Applicant No. 1, alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of “DSLR Cameras&....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

K.J. MATHEW vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS


(Kerala High Court | Nov 2, 2020)

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10 notices issued to him, prior to the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73 and 74/ 74 of the GST Act. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in its challenge against Exts.P9 and P10 notices, I am of the view that at this stage of the proceedings, where the petitioner is only being requested to pay certain amounts for avoiding a show cause notice that could possibly follow under Section 73/74 ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 show cause notice issued to him under Section 74 of the GST Act. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in its challenge against the show cause notice, I am of the view that since Ext.P10 is only a show cause notice, against which the petitioner has an effective right to prefer an objection and get the matter adjudicated before the adjudicating authority, an interference with the show cause notice at this stag....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
The petitioner, who is a purchaser of fresh turmeric from an agriculturist in Karnataka, has approached this Court aggrieved by a detention of the consignment, while in transit, at Muthanga in Wayanad. In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that, the consignment in question was being transported under cover of an invoice (Ext.P3) generated by the petitioner in his capacity as purchaser of the goods, which showed the goods as attracting tax on reverse charge basis, and Ext.P5 e-....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS vs. M/S. NIRALA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Oct 29, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that the Applicant No. 7 (here-in-after referred to as the DGAP) vide his Report dated 24.04.2019, 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 6 and found that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of additional Input tax Credit (ITC) to the above Applicant as well as other home buyers ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
Heard. On the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is being taken up for final hearing. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by denial of transitioning the credit of ₹ 17,07,673/- after the submission of declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December, 2017 in time on Goods and Services Tax Network (“GSTN”) viz. Respondent No.4 and admitted successful filing of the same by the Respondent authorities. Petitioner has, therefore, challenged the action of the Respond....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned show cause notices issued in respect of three assessment years namely 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. 2. Heard Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. By consent of both parties, these writ petitions are taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that ....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AVANTI PATEL vs. M/S. STARBUCKS COFFEE


(National Anti Profiteering Authority | Oct 28, 2020)

1. The brief facts of the present case are that under Rule 128 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, an application was filed by the Applicant No. 1 against the Respondent before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering alleging that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of reduction in the GST rate on restaurant service when it was reduced from 18% to 5% w.e.f. 15.11.2017 without benefit of ITC and he had increased the base prices of the food items sold by h....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

GANGA RAM vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER


(Punjab and Haryana High Court | Oct 28, 2020)

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in criminal complaint No. A.C. No. 22 of 2020 dated 18.08.2020, registered under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a businessman and has falsely be....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in
1. Heard Mr.Ishaan Patkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr.Jetly, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1. 2. On 15th October, 2020, we had passed the following order:- “2 Petitioner before us is the Confederation of GST Professionals and Industries, primarily comprising of Chartered Accountants and GST Professionals. 3 Principal relief claimed in the Petition is for a direction to the Respondents to allow/extend the time limit for submitting Forms GSTR-9 and 9....
Add to Fav ☆
Add to favorites.
Summarize this case by TaxGPT in


  Hide
31
May
S
M
T
W
T
F
S