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
Showing filtered results. Clear filters
Adisan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Bombay High Court Quashes GST Refund Rejection Order for Violation of Natural Justice and Non-Service of Form GST RFD-08 Notice on GSTN Portal under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts of the Case
The
Parties: Petitioner No. 1, Adisan Laboratories Pvt.
Ltd., is a private limited company based in Pune, and Petitioner No. 2 is
its Shareholder & Managing Director. The Respond...
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu vs. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.: Maintainability of High Court Appeal Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act Against CESTAT Order Granting Refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in Light of Supreme Court Precedents
Facts of the Case
The
Appellant, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Jammu and
Kashmir), Jammu, preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central
Excise Act, 1944.
The
appeal chal...
Union of India vs N. Jeetendra & Others: Telangana High Court Directs Conduct of DPC for Promotion of Executive Assistants to Inspector Post Within Four Months; Exercise Subject to Pending O.A. No. 1714 of 2020
Facts of the
CaseThe respondents were working as Executive
Assistants in the Goods and Services Tax Department. Being aggrieved by the
Department’s failure to conduct a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
for pr...
Sandeep Kumar vs State of Haryana – Regular Bail Granted Under Section 439 CrPC in ₹59 Crore Money Circulation Scheme Case Due to Long Custody, Parity with Co-Accused and Delay in Trial
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, filed a second
petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 578 dated 04.10.2018,
registered at P...
Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Jammu vs. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd.: Maintainability of High Court Appeal Under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act Against CESTAT Order Granting Refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess in Light of Supreme Court Precedents
Facts of the Case
The
Appellant, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Jammu and
Kashmir), Jammu, preferred an appeal under Section 35G of the Central
Excise Act, 1944.
The
appeal chal...
M/s. Ashesh Kumar Behuria vs Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha and Another – Statutory Appeal Against Adjudication Order, Condonation of Delay Due to Pendency of Writ Petition and Liberty to Challenge Order
Facts of the
CaseThe Petitioner, M/s. Ashesh Kumar Behuria,
approached the High Court of Orissa by filing W.P.(C) No. 27178 of 2022 against
the Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha and another authority.During the proce...
M/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs Union of India and Others – Recovery of GST Refund Is Automatic Consequence of Retrospective Amendment to Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules; Writ Petition Dismissed
Facts of the
CaseM/s. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. filed a writ petition
before the High Court of Orissa raising four prayers concerning refund under
the GST regime. During the proceedings, the petitioner acknowledged tha...
M/s R D Construction and Supplies vs State of Bihar – GST Registration Restoration, Filing of Pending Returns and Payment of Tax Dues | GST Act, 2017
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, M/s R D Construction and
Supplies, through its proprietor Rabindra Mishra, approached the Patna High
Court seeking a direction to the respondents for immediate restoration of its...
Supreme Food Products vs State Tax Officer – Kerala High Court Permits Statutory GST Appeals Against Assessment Orders and Excludes Writ Pendency Period for Limitation
Facts of the
CaseSupreme Food Products approached the High Court of
Kerala being aggrieved by two assessment orders passed under the provisions of
the GST laws for the assessment years 2017-18 (November to March) and ...
L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Section 11(5), 11(6) & 11(8) Arbitration Petition: Only General Manager-Notified Claims Are Arbitrable; Restrictive Three-Member Arbitrator Panel Invalid
Facts of the
CaseL&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro Limited, approached the Delhi High
Court under Sections 11(5), 11(6) and 11(8) of the Arbitration and Concilia...