Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Bombay High Court — GST

343 rulings

  1. Bombay High Court · 11 May 2021
    Since investigation is still underway, therefore bail is being rejected of the accused in connection with ITC fraud case.

    Amit Kumar Shukla v. Union of India

    (2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5720 (HC-BOMBAY)

  2. Bombay High Court · 12 May 2021
    A person cannot be kept in detention beyond a total period of 60 days where investigation relates to offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and that the Magistrate is authorized to detain beyond 15 days period if satisfied that the grounds are made out.

    Krishna Murari Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5707 (HC-BOMBAY)

  3. Bombay High Court · 17 Dec 2021
    We do not see any prima facie reason to hold that the Assistant Commissioner has acted in accordance with the law.

    Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 5646 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Bombay High Court · 13 Dec 2021
    For the purpose of limitation, the date of communication of the impugned assessment order is to be regarded as the date on which the order was sent by email to the petitioner.

    Meritas Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 5617 (HC-BOMBAY)

  5. Bombay High Court · 16 Mar 2021
    A provision would have to be interpreted on the strength of the object and reasons for which it was inserted and bearing in mind the overall scheme of the Act.

    DMR Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4742 (HC-BOMBAY)

  6. Bombay High Court · 16 Mar 2021
    Continued detention of the petitioners would not at all be justified.

    Sunil Kumar Jha and other vs UOI

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4741 (HC-BOMBAY)

  7. Bombay High Court · 12 Mar 2021
    Bank account of only the taxable person can be provisionally attached under section 83 of the CGST Act and therefore the provisional attachment of bank account of the family members is set aside.

    Dharmesh Gandhi vs. Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion)

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4729 (HC-BOMBAY)

  8. Bombay High Court · 27 Feb 2021
    The writ petition has been filed by the professional body of GST practitioners who are before us and not any individual taxable person expressing any difficulty in adhering to the extended timeline of 28.02.2021.

    Goods and Services Tax Practitioners Association vs. UOI

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4695 (HC-BOMBAY)

  9. Bombay High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Under section 70 of the CGST Act tendering of evidence or production of documents is to be done in the same manner as done by a civil court under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

    JSK Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4694 (HC-BOMBAY)

  10. Bombay High Court · 18 Feb 2021
    For exercising power of arrest under section 69, Commissioner may authorize if he has reasons to believe.

    Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4665 (HC-BOMBAY)

  11. Bombay High Court · 16 Feb 2021
    In the escrow account, the share of Principal Contractor was 3% only and balance 97% would have to be transferred to the assessee.

    Abhi Engineering Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4656 (HC-BOMBAY)

  12. Bombay High Court · 16 Feb 2021
    No recovery of IGST already paid by the petitioner on the goods imported under advance authorization shall be made till the next date.

    Prashi Pharma Private Limited vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4655 (HC-BOMBAY)

  13. Bombay High Court · 11 Feb 2021
    All that would be required for being eligible under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit was a written communication which will include a letter intimating duty demand or duty liability admitted by the person concerned during inquiry, investigation or audit.

    Suyog Telematics Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4648 (HC-BOMBAY)

  14. Bombay High Court · 11 Feb 2021
    In tax frauds the modus operandi of creating fictitious entities to get around the rigours of law is not unknown.

    Yogesh Jagdish Kanodia vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4647 (HC-BOMBAY)

  15. Bombay High Court · 22 Jan 2021
    Rejection of the declaration of the petitioner is devoid of any reason and an opportunity of hearing petitioner ought to have been given before rejection of the declaration.

    Joseph Daniel Massey vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4603 (HC-BOMBAY)

  16. Bombay High Court · 21 Jan 2021
    Provision of Section 69 of Act shows that subjective satisfaction of Commissioner is sufficient for effecting arrest of a person, who has committed the offence u/s 132 of the Act.

    Tejas Pravin Dugad vs. UOI

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4596 (HC-BOMBAY)

  17. Bombay High Court · 11 Jan 2021
    The difficulty faced by CD on account of non-availability of balance of ITC availed in pre-CIRP period.

    Lavasa Corporation Ltd.vs UOI & Ors

    (2021) TaxCorp(IDT) 4549 (HC-BOMBAY)

  18. Bombay High Court · 31 Dec 2020
    Merely because there is a proceeding under section 67 would not mean that recourse to such a drastic power as under section 83 would be an automatic consequence, more so when the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation.

    AJE India Pvt Ltd vs. UOI

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4511 (HC-BOMBAY)

  19. Bombay High Court · 16 Dec 2020
    Revenue has no objection to the amendment prayer.

    Abhi Engineering Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4468 (HC-BOMBAY)

  20. Bombay High Court · 25 Nov 2020
    Merely on technical ground an admitted input credit is sought to be denied to the Petitioner. That according to us would be wholly unfair and a travesty of justice.

    Heritage Lifestyles and Developers & Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4399 (HC-BOMBAY)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.