Search Results for "GST Tribunal"

233 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 233 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Petitioner’s Appeal Reinstated as Dismissal Grounds Found Invalid; Directions Issued for De Novo Consideration. High Court quashes Appellate Authority's dismissal due to procedural irregularities and remands for reconsideration.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal due to alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements and lack of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Clarification and Declares CGST Rule 31A(3) Ultra Vires in Favor of Turf Clubs. GST Liability on Betting Amount Limited to Commission Retained, Not Entire Totalisator Collection, Under CGST Act, 2017.

The two writ petitions were filed by Bangalore Turf Club Limited and Mysore Race Club Limited, companies conducting horse racing and facilitating bett...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Show Cause Notice in GST Case for Lack of Jurisdiction and Violation of Natural Justice. Show Cause Notice Issued by Additional Commissioner Without Proper Authorization and Without Providing Relevant Documents Set Aside.

The petitioner, M/s. Vigneshwara Transport Company, a proprietor engaged in transportation of goods and registered under the Central Goods and Service...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Show Cause Notice in GST Discount Case — No Interference at Pre-Adjudication Stage. Limitation and Retrospective Effect of Circular Can Be Raised Before Adjudicating Authority Under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner, Apollo Tyres Limited, challenged a show cause notice dated 2 August 2024 issued by the Additional Director, Directorate General of GST...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Interest on Delayed GST Refund Despite Red Flagging of Exporter. Petitioner entitled to interest under Section 56 of CGST Act for period beyond 60 days from filing shipping bill, as red flagging does not justify indefinite delay.

The petitioner, Ms. Anita Agarwal, sole proprietor of M/s. Shanker International, is an exporter of goods such as Ethyl Alcohol Liquid Packaging Film ...