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

GST landmark rulings

5,409 rulings

  1. MP High Court · 07 Sep 2020
    If the Assessee files representation within the prescribed time, the Jurisdictional Officer shall decide it on merits.

    M/s Gurukripa Lubricants vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4157 (HC-MP)

  2. Gujarat High Court · 07 Sep 2020
    The Assessee had taken all the steps for proper filing of the appeal immediately after issuance of the order passed by the adjudicating authority till the filing of the appeal therefore, the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation and thereby depriving the Assessee to submit its case on merits.

    Gujarat State Petronet Limited vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4156 (HC-GUJARAT)

  3. Gujarat High Court · 05 Sep 2020
    Assessee was entitled to claim refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as input tax credit is distributed by the input service distributor.

    Britannia Industries Limited vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4155 (HC-GUJARAT)

  4. Karnataka High Court · 04 Sep 2020
    Designated Committee is directed to accept the declaration filed by the assessee in Form No.SVLDRS-1 as final and issue a modified Form No SVLDRS- 3 giving credit to the sum of Rs.4,15,14,081/- as deposit and collect the remaining sum as tax dues and on payment of the said dues, issue the assessee a Discharge Certificate that the assessee is entitled to under the SVLDR scheme.

    Jagdish Advertising vs. Designated Committee, SVLDRS & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4154 (HC-KARNATAKA)

  5. P&H High Court · 04 Sep 2020
    The computation of profiteered amount made by the DGAP was wrong as the gross profit and cost of the Respondent had remained same as untenable.

    DGAP vs. Shapoorji Palonji (Relationship Properties Pvt. Ltd.)

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4153 (HC-P&H)

  6. P&H High Court · 04 Sep 2020
    The petitioner cannot be detained during the trial only on account of the fact that a bail order in the form of a recovery proceedings has been passed against him to pay the outstanding worth almost Rs.2 crores along with interest.

    Ranjit Singh vs. State of Haryana

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4152 (HC-P&H)

  7. AAR · 03 Sep 2020
    A la carte services chosen by the client is based on the requirement of client’s employees and various factors viz. employee title, family make-up, to/from location etc. This proves that the list of services which constitute a part of the relocation management service are not naturally bundled. They are bundled based on the requirement of the client.

    In the matter of Cartus India Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4150 (AAR)

  8. AAR · 03 Sep 2020
    Recipient of service during warranty period will be the manufacturer Volvo Sweden as it is at their behest that the appellant has undertaken the activity of repair and/or replacement of parts o

    In the matter of Volvo Eicher Commercial Vehicles

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4149 (AAR)

  9. Kerala High Court · 03 Sep 2020
    Recovery proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner, by the assessment orders and demand notices, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority through statutory appeals in the meanwhile.

    K. U. Niyas vs. The Assisstant Commissioner

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4148 (HC-KERALA)

  10. Kerala High Court · 03 Sep 2020
    As per Section 169(c) and (d) the service of any communication to the e-mail address provided by an assessee at the time of registration, as also by making available the communication in the common portal of the department, was to be treated as an effective communication under the statute.

    K. U. Niyas vs. The Assisstant Commissioner

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4147 (HC-KERALA)

  11. Kerala High Court · 03 Sep 2020
    After the stage of investigation, the Revenue shall return to the Assessee, all such seized documents as are not relied upon by them for proceeding further against the Assessee.

    Rajive and Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4146 (HC-KERALA)

  12. MP High Court · 02 Sep 2020
    Seizure was done u/s 67(2) under a reasonable belief that the aforesaid were the proceeds of the illicit supply of goods namely Tobacco and Pan Masala and would be useful for further investigation.

    Kanishka Matta vs. Union of India and Others

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4143 (HC-MP) · Section 67

  13. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2020
    Notice is issued to the Revenue for examining the legality and validity of section 17(5)(d) and the Explanation to Section 17.

    Bharti Airtel Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4140 (HC-DELHI) · Section 17

  14. Anti-profiteering Authority · 31 Aug 2020
    No provision of penalty for violation of section 171(1) i.e. for not passing of benefit of tax reduction or ITC has been prescribed u/s 122(1)(i), therefore penalty under the said section cannot be imposed.

    DGAP vs. Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4135 (NAA)

  15. Anti-profiteering Authority · 31 Aug 2020
    Penalty u/s 171(3A) shouldn’t be imposed as the provision has been inserted w.e.f. 01.01.2020 while the period for violation was June, 2017- July, 2018, and it cannot have retrospective operation, therefore, withdraws penalty provisions.

    DGAP vs. Horizon Projects Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4134 (NAA)

  16. Anti-profiteering Authority · 31 Aug 2020
    GST registration of Respondent was cancelled and therefore, it had not filed GSTR-3B Returns from September, 2018 onwards and GSTR-1 Returns from January, 2019 onwards.

    DGAP vs. M/s Aryan Hometec Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4133 (NAA)

  17. Anti-profiteering Authority · 31 Aug 2020
    Penalty could only be imposed when there was mens rea and deliberate attempt to violate the provisions of law and as it had complied with the Authority’s order, the same depicts his bonafide intention therefore, penalty shouldn’t be imposed on it.

    DGAP vs. VTWO Ventures

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4132 (NAA)

  18. Anti-profiteering Authority · 31 Aug 2020
    Since no penalty provisions u/s 171(3A) were existent during the period of violation i.e. 01.07.2017-31.08.2018, same cannot be imposed on Respondent retrospectively.

    DGAP vs. M/s S3 Infrareality Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4131 (NAA)

  19. Anti-profiteering Authority · 28 Aug 2020
    Passing on the benefit of GST is regulated under CGST Act, 2017 and not under Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and hence no prior approval of the State Govt. is required to pass on the benefit.

    DGAP vs. PVR Ltd

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4129 (NAA)

  20. Delhi High Court · 28 Aug 2020
    Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel, shall be the point person/coordinator for the petitioners and Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel shall represent the respondents and accordingly, they are directed to prepare a convenience compilation.

    Pyramid Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ots. vs. UOI & Ors .

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4128 (HC-DELHI)

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.