FACTS OF THE CASEThe petitioner, Super Skin Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
challenged multiple GST demand orders issued for the financial years 2017‑18,
2018‑19 and 2019‑20. These demands had been raised by Sales Tax Officers ...
FACTS OF THE CASE
The
Petitioner challenged:
An
impugned adjudication order dated 2nd August 2024, raising a tax demand
of Rs. 44,84,321/‑ and total demand of Rs. 86,63,462/‑ for FY April
...
Facts of the Case
The
Petitioner company engaged in security services held GST registration.
In
March 2019, inspection found the business premises closed, prompting a
Show‑Cause Notice (SCN) for...
FACTS OF THE CASE
The
petitioners — A and T Security Services Pvt Ltd, its Director Tejvir
Malik, and other connected petitioners — are engaged in security
services and hold GST registration.
O...
Facts of the CaseIn W.P.(C)‑16906/2025 and connected matters, the petitioners —
A and T Security Services Pvt Ltd and its directors, including Tejvir
Malik, Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Vivek Kumar — challenged
order...
Facts of the Case
• Petitioners include A & T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. and its directors
challenging an order imposing GST penalty and imposition of tax demand.
• The petitioner company, engaged in securit...
Facts of the CaseThe petition was filed by M/s Ganga Enterprises, a
sole proprietorship run by a senior citizen and widow, challenging the Order‑in‑Original
dated 28.08.2024 in which a demand of Rs. 97,53,080/‑ p...
FACTS OF THE CASEThe petitioner, Aashish, challenged the freezing
(provisional attachment) of his bank account bearing account no. 259560519588
maintained with IndusInd Bank, Rajouri Garden, on the ground that neither ...
Facts of the CaseM/s Imagine Marketing Limited (“Petitioner”),
parent company of the boAt brand, was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated
15.10.2024 proposing cancellation of its GST registration under the Centra...
Facts of the Case
The
Commissioner of Central Tax (Appellant) challenged the CESTAT order dated
13.12.2024 holding that the Respondent (M/s TC Global India Pvt Ltd) was not
an “intermediary” under...