Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Knowledge Portal
Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.
Explore Now
Royal Blue Hotels (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, State GST Department & Ors. – Kerala High Court Stays Revenue Recovery Pending Tribunal’s Decision on Stay Applications in Tax Appeals
Facts of the
CaseM/s. Royal Blue Hotels (P) Ltd. suffered assessment
orders for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner challenged
those assessment orders before the first appellate authority.The firs...
Smt. Seetha S & Others vs M/s Landson Infrastructure — Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 | GST-Related Invoice Objection Does Not Bar Appointment of Sole Arbitrator Where Penal Consequences Are Not Prima Facie Established
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners and the respondent, M/s Landson
Infrastructure, had executed a registered Lease Deed dated 14 November 2013.
The Lease Deed contained an arbitration clause contemplating reference of a...
Rathinam Ashokkumar vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & State Tax Officer — Madras High Court Allows Revival of Cancelled GST Registration for Non-Filing of Returns Under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017
Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, Rathinam Ashokkumar, was the proprietor of M/s
Nammalvar Rice Mill and held GST Registration No. 33AISPA5315N1Z4.
The petitioner failed to file GST returns for a period of six...
Muthu Subbuah Ayyadurai vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others – Madras High Court Allows Revival of Cancelled GST Registration for Non-Filing of Returns Under Section 29 of CGST/TNGST Act
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Muthu Subbuah Ayyadurai, was
registered under GST bearing GSTIN No. 33AELPA2331M2ZR. The petitioner failed
to furnish GST returns for a period of six months.Consequently, the third res...
K. Dineshkumar vs State Tax Officer-1 & Others – GST Transitional Credit Through TRAN-1/TRAN-2 Governed by Supreme Court Directions in Filco Trade Centre | Section 140 of CGST/KSGST Act
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, K. Dineshkumar, aged 51
years and proprietor of M/s Krishna Enterprises, Sankaramangalam, Pattambi,
Palakkad, approached the Kerala High Court in relation to the issue of availing
Tra...
M/s. Nikitha Buildtech (P) Ltd. vs Union of India & Others — Karnataka High Court: Service Tax Liability Admitted and Quantified Before 30 June 2019 Eligible for SVLDRS Benefit Under Section 123(c) of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 Despite Pending Investigation and Amount Discrepancy
Facts of the
CaseM/s. Nikitha Buildtech (P) Ltd. filed a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging
the rejection of its claim for relief under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
...
White Stone vs Goods and Service Tax Council & Others – Kerala High Court Applies Supreme Court’s Filco Trade Centre Directions for GST Transitional Credit Through TRAN-1/TRAN-2 | Section 140 of CGST Act
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, White Stone, approached the
Kerala High Court in relation to difficulties concerning the availment of Transitional
Credit while migrating to the Goods and Services Tax regime.The dispu...
Best AI Event Photo Sharing Software in India | TurtlePic Review, Features & Pricing
TurtlePic – AI-Powered Event
Photo Sharing Platform: Features, Services, How to Get Started & Contact
DetailsIf you are an event organizer,
wedding photographer, corporate event planner, sports organizer, educat...
Jeyamani Raj vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & State Tax Officer – Madras High Court Allows Revival of GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing of Returns for Six Months Subject to Suguna Cutpiece Conditions | Section 29(2)(c), Section 30 and Article 226
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Jeyamani Raj, Proprietor of M/s.
Pearl Enterprises, was a registered person under GST.The petitioner had failed to file GSTR returns for
a period of six months. Consequently, the secon...
Anu Bansal vs State of Punjab & Connected Matters – Punjab and Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹8 Crore Partnership Firm Fund Misappropriation and Forgery Case Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC; Relief Granted to Limited Beneficiaries Under Section 438 CrPC
Facts of the
CaseThe three connected petitions arose from the same
FIR and sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case initially registered under
Section 420 IPC, with Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC subsequently...