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
M/s Gordhandas Gobindram A vs State of Chhattisgarh – Reimbursement of Additional GST Liability on Pre-GST Works Contracts | Chhattisgarh High Court | GST on Government Contracts
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, M/s Gordhandas Gobindram A, had been awarded
a government works contract before the introduction of the Goods and Services
Tax (GST) regime on 01.07.2017. After GST came into force, the...
M/s Ratna Khanij Udyog vs State of Chhattisgarh & Others – Reimbursement of Additional GST Burden on Pre-GST Works Contracts | Chhattisgarh High Court | WPT No.160 of 2018 | Order dated 15.12.2022
Facts of the CaseThe
petitioner, M/s Ratna Khanij Udyog, was awarded contracts by the
respondents for construction and widening of roads under the pre-GST tax
regime. At the time of bidding and execution of the contra...
S.Shanmuganathan vs The District Collector & Others – Rejection of Tender Bid for Non-Compliance with Tender Conditions | Madras High Court | Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Facts of the CaseThe respondents issued a tender notification dated
18.09.2022 inviting applications from eligible persons for taking shops in the
Regulated Market Committee commercial complex at Ramanathapuram on rent...
M/s Paras Industrial Sales vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another – Assessment Order Set Aside for Failure to Grant Mandatory Personal Hearing under Sections 74 & 75(4) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
Facts of the CaseThe
petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 13.09.2022, passed under
Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, on the ground that the statutory
requirement of granting a personal hearing had no...
M/s. Sai Sudha Technologies vs Commissioner of GST & Central Tax & Others – Telangana High Court | Appeal Cannot Be Rejected Permanently for Delay in Mandatory Pre-Deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Read with Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, M/s. Sai Sudha Technologies, is a
registered taxable person. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging
non-payment of service tax amounting to ₹6,38,700 for the period 2016-1...
M/s Venkateswara Traders vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals) & Others – Delay of 119 Days in GST Appeal Condoned; Cancellation of GST Registration Remanded for Fresh Decision | W.P. No. 35300 of 2022 | Andhra Pradesh High Court | Section 107 of the CGST/APGST Act
Facts of the CaseThe
petitioner challenged the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals),
whereby the appeal filed against the cancellation of the petitioner's GST
registration was dismissed solely on the groun...
Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another – Allahabad High Court Upholds Rejection of Tender for Non-Compliance with EMD Requirement under Clause 12(c) of Tender Document
Facts of the CaseThe Government of Uttar Pradesh invited an e-tender for
operationalising Mobile Veterinary Units (MVUs) under the Livestock Health
& Disease Control Scheme. The petitioner, Ziqitza Health Care Ltd....
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. – Condonation of 5 Days Delay in Filing Central Excise Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act | Gauhati High Court
Facts of the CaseThe
Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dibrugarh, filed an interlocutory
application before the Gauhati High Court seeking condonation of a delay of
five days in filing the connected Centra...
M/s. Radiant Enterprises Private Limited & Another vs Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX (Appeal-I) & Others – GST on Prefabricated Building Purchased from Eveready Industries | Section 7 of CGST Act, 2017 | Schedule II & Schedule III
Facts of the CaseThe
petitioners challenged the appellate order dated 31.03.2021 passed under the
CGST Act before the Calcutta High Court.Two
principal issues arose before the Appellate Authority:
Whether the
...
Bilal Ahmed vs State of Uttarakhand – FIR Quashing Denied Despite Petitioner Not Being Named in FIR | Sections 406 & 420 IPC | Confession of Co-Accused as Investigative Clue | Arnesh Kumar Guidelines
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner approached the High Court seeking
quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, relating to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of
tr...