Home      Free WhatsApp Updates      Services      GST E-Books
🔒 Login    

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition of petitioner seeking a direction to be issued to GST department to conduct the search operations in the presence of advocate of petitioner.

    

Rahul Gandhi tweeted that GST implementation failure will be future case study by Harvard Business School

    

CBIC Press Note for capping the late fees to Rs. 500/- per GSTR-3B return

    

Rule 67A substituted to notify GSTR-1 filing with OTP for taxpayers having NIL details of outward supply. The new rule to be effective from 01st July 2020.

    

Gujarat High Court rejected the writ petition challanging the legal validity of Rule 142(1)(a) of CGST Rules and denied to declare the same as ultra vires.

    

DGGI unveiled tax evasion by unregistered Pan Masala/Gutkha manufacturing unit in Delhi

    

Late fee paid in excess of the Notification No. 57/2020 shall be re-credited to the taxpayers.

    

Penalty relief for late filing of GSTR-3B - Notification No.57/2020 dated 30.06.2020

    

NAA confirms profiteering charges against Pivotal Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. and directs the company to refund the amount of Rs. 2.97 Crores to buyers.

    

EMAAR MGF found guilty for profiteering of Rs. 19 crores by National Anti-Profiteering Authority.

    
View all
GST E-Books   
TaxReply.com - Free Tax updates for All
GST Library
Taxreply tweets
GST News
About GST Library
E-Books
Subscription Plans
Offers
GST Rates Reckoner
Classification of Goods and Services
Classification of Goods and Services (Search)
Free Trial
GST Set-off Calculator
Full Site Search
GST Act / Rules
GST Act / Rules - Latest Amendments
GST Amendment Statistics
GST Notifications / Circulars Press Releases +
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
GST Case Laws (All) ✓
↳ AAR Orders
↳ AAAR Orders
↳ NAA Orders
↳ High Court Orders
↳ Supreme Court Orders
GST Forms   
E-way Bill
↳ E-way Notifications
↳ E-way Bill News
↳ E-way Bill Rules
↳ E-way Bill FAQ
Finance Bill
GST Case Laws - Advance Search Tool
TR Citation -TR-
Court
State
Related Tags New   OR     OR     OR  
Date (From)
Date (To)
Name of Party
Free-Text Search
Sort By

Text Search option  


2549 Result  

GST Case Laws

SUBHASH JOSHI & ANOTHER... vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS.... [2020 (7) TR 2630]

HC | Jul 3, 2020 | WP No.9184/2020

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20th June, 2020 whereby the premises of the petitioner has been sealed under the provisions of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “GST Act”). [2] The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the manufacturer of sweet betel nut and which has all the necessary licenses and permissions for this purpose and is regularly paying the GST. Further case of the petitioner is that the Plot No.15

WATERMELON MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED... vs. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX, GST DELHI (EAST) & ... [2020 (6) TR 2607]

HC | Delhi | Jun 29, 2020 | W.P.(C) 3618/2020

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03rd June, 2020 passed by respondent No.1 whereby it has kept the provisional attachment orders dated 05th March, 2020 as well as corrigendum dated 01st June, 2020 alive after specifying that the reason for attachment was that proceeding under Section 67 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) was pending

M/S SWAYAM... ... [2020 (6) TR 2621]

AAR | West Bengal | Jun 29, 2020 | 03/WBAAR/2020-21

Preamble A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called ‘the GST Act’), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such furth

M/S. IZ-KARTEX NAMED AFTER PG KOROBKOV LTD.... ... [2020 (6) TR 2623]

AAR | West Bengal | Jun 29, 2020 | 04/WBAAR/2020-21

Preamble A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called ‘the GST Act’), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such furth

M/S. MANSI OILS AND GRAINS PVT. LTD.... ... [2020 (6) TR 2624]

AAR | West Bengal | Jun 29, 2020 | 02/WBAAR/2020-21

Preamble A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called ‘the GST Act’), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such furth

M/S. THE LEPROSY MISSION TRUST INDIA BILL EDGAR ME... ... [2020 (6) TR 2625]

AAR | West Bengal | Jun 29, 2020 | 01/WBAAR/2020-21

Preamble A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called “the GST Act‟), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such further time as menti

M/S JVG SUPER CARGO SERVICE LIMITED... vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER... [2020 (6) TR 2626]

HC | Rajasthan | Jun 29, 2020 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2540/2020

JUDGMENT/ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a transporter of the goods and his vehicle along with goods has been confiscated. Learned counsel submits that he had filed an appeal which has been rejected. Against which although a second appeal lies, however, taking into consideration the present circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court for release of vehicle and against its auctioning. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the reve

M/S. K.M. TILES... vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER... [2020 (6) TR 2627]

HC | Jun 29, 2020 | W.P.(MD)No.7055 of 2020 And W.P(MD)No.64

Though the writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 bearing reference in GSTIN. 33AXLPA4540R1Z8/17-18, the respondent has now passed another order dated 24.06.2020 bearing reference in TIN.3397566000/17-18. By the said order dated 24.06.2020, the respondent has recognized that the petitioner is entitled for a refund of excess amount of ₹ 13,38,958/-, which was sought to be denied vide the impugned order as transitional credit. According to the petitioner, the

SMT. HONEY MACKER... vs. M/S. PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.... [2020 (6) TR 2589]

NAA | Jun 26, 2020 | 35/2020

1. The present Report dated 27.12.2019 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 vide her application dated 03.08.2018 filed before the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Applicant No. 1 had alleged profiteering by the Respondent in respect of purch

SHRI M. SRINIVAS... vs. M/S. VIJETHA SUPERMARKETS PVT. LTD.... [2020 (6) TR 2590]

NAA | Jun 26, 2020 | 34/2020

1 The present Report dated 23.12.2019, has been received from the Applicant No. 2 i.e. 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 case are that the Applicant No. 1 had filed an application alleging profiteering by the Respondent in respect of the product “Frozen Green Peas” supplied by him. The Applicant had alleged that the Respondent had not r