GST Library
Login | Register
About GST Library
Contact Us
Subscription (Price)
GST Updates
GSTR-3B Manual New
GSTR-9 Manual New
GST Calendar
GST Case Laws
GST Case Laws Sitemap
GST Notifications
GST Act / Rules
GST Rates
Classification by CTA
ITC Reversal Calculator New
E-invoice Applicability Calculator
Inverted Duty Refund Calculator
GST Set-off Calculator
GST Forms
Full Site Search
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
GST Videos

GST e-Books

GST Domains Sale

About Us

Our Services

Contact Us

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd
TM
Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Join on twitter

7048924208

GST Case Laws

Court
High Court
State
Search by Related Tags
  OR

  OR

  OR
Date (From)
Date (To)
Name of Party
Free-Text Search
Sort By
Text Search option

   6,520 Results

CONTINENTAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana | Oct 19, 2022)

1. In terms of Section 102 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TGST Act, 2017 or the Act), 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 months from the date of the order. Provided that no rectification which has the eff...

NARSIMHA REDDY & SONS


(Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Telangana | Oct 19, 2022)

1. In terms of Section 102 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TGST Act, 2017 or the Act), 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 months from the date of the order. Provided that no rectification which has the eff...
1. Petitioner is impugning an order passed by respondent no.4 dismissing petitioner’s appeal vide order dated 25th February 2021 on the ground that petitioner had an opportunity to comply with the provisions of the regulations/statute and petitioner failed to avail of remedy under Section 30 of the CGST Act for revocation of cancellation of the registration. 2. Considering the conspectus of the matter, we are inclined to accord an opportunity to petitioner to file an application bef...

VISHNU PRATAP vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS


(Allahabad High Court | Oct 18, 2022)

1.Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022 of 2022, under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Sections 122 and 132 of the U.P. and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh. 3.The aforesaid case has been regist...
1 Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition read as under: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the petitioner’s case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Refund Rejection Order No.ZY2707220428298 dated 29th July 2022 (Exhi...

ABHIJEET FERROTECH LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST)


(Andhra Pradesh High Court | Oct 18, 2022)

Challenging the assessment order passed by the 1st respondent in A.O.No.ZH370722OD69273, dated 18.07.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act read with Section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, & the Circular No.31/05/2018-GST, dated 09.02.2018, as amended by the Circular No.169/01/2022 dated 12.03.2022 and against the principles of natural justice, the present writ petition came to be filed. Heard S...

N. RAMA RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS


(Telangana High Court | Oct 18, 2022)

Heard Mr. Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2; Mr. K.Raji Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5; Mr. A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10; and Mr. M.Sai Chandra Haas, learned counsel for respondent No.11. 2. The present writ petition in the form of public interest litigation was filed by N.Rama Rao, a resident of Wyra Municipality, Khammam District. 3. Reliefs sought for in ...

RITES LIMITED


(Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana | Oct 18, 2022)

APPLICANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR SEEKING AN ADVANCE RULING: To file an application before the Authority of Advance Ruling, the applicant must satisfy the conditions prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017) and Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as HGST Act, 2017). Since the provisions of both the Acts are pari materia, any reference to provisions of CGST Act, 2017 in this order should ...
The appellant has come forward with the present appeal challenging the order in W.P.No. 18753/2022 dated 25.08.2022. 2. The appellant is a Logistic Service Provider and also a Transporter. The appellant has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18753/2022. By the impugned order, the learned single Jude has also disposed of the two other writ petitions. 3. The facts on record indicate that the petitioner was transporti...
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Respondent No.5 ECL, Respondent no. 6 MIPL-NKAS (JV), Respondent No.8 GSTN and the Respondent State. Writ petitioner approached this Court to allow it to carry out amendment in its GSTR-1 for the month of January 2019 in order to rectify its mistake of mentioning wrong GSTIN number against the invoices raised on Respondent no.5. The GSTIN number of petitioner’s own joint venture, Respondent No.6 was inadvertently mentioned therein. Petitioner al...