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

5,415 rulings

  1. Supreme Court · 24 Feb 2020
    We consider it appropriate and proper that, in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, where earlier writ petitions are already pending.

    The National Anti-Profiteering Authority vs. Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3598 (SC)

  2. Gujarat High Court · 22 Feb 2020
    The notification has to be read in the context of the EPCG policy keeping in mind the object envisaged by the policy and not in the strict sense as in the case of a general exemption under section 25 of the Customs Act.

    Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3597 (HC-GUJARAT)

  3. Bombay High Court · 21 Feb 2020
    The order states that assessee did not file reply to show cause notice, however, assessee's reply was duly endorsed by Revenue authorities as received prior to date of the cancellation order.

    Great Sands Consulting Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3596 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Chhattisgarh High Court · 21 Feb 2020
    The writ benefit cannot be extended to such indolent persons who sleeps over their rights and duties without any plausible explanation and justification and now at the belated stage woke up from slumber and is trying to get a relief from the High Court without any bonafide ground.

    Jagadamba Hardware Stores vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3593 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)

  5. Delhi High Court · 21 Feb 2020
    Restriction placed on GSTN as to rectification of invoice number is not supported by the provisions of law and is completely arbitrary.

    Pawan Kumar Karnani vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3592 (HC-DELHI)

  6. P&H High Court · 21 Feb 2020
    Government has extended date for filing or revising the earlier filed incorrect TRAN-1 till December 31, 2019.

    Silicon Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3591 (HC-P&H)

  7. Delhi High Court · 20 Feb 2020
    Prima facie it appeared that the limitation period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CCGST Rules, 2017 within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, appeared to be directory inasmuch as no consequence of non-adherence of the said period of 6 months was prescribed either in the CGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

    Nestle India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3589 (HC-DELHI)

  8. Chhattisgarh High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    The demand notice was only a format as is required under the guidelines framed under the Rules and the proceedings shall be drawn only against the owner of goods.

    Shankar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3584 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)

  9. Kerala High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    Revenue issued notices withholding the payments of wages to the petitioner from Government/semi Government Institutions while observing petitioner’s willingness to pay the GST amount if any, quantified and intimated.

    The Secretary vs. The Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3583 (HC-KERALA)

  10. Kerala High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    There was serious delay in effecting the refunds and hence petitioner was entitled to interest.

    Akay Flavours and Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3582 (HC-KERALA)

  11. Gujarat High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    There is no question of looking into Section 129(6) of the Act, more particularly, when this Court has passed a specific order while finding no other ground for the purpose of issuing notice in Form GST-MOV-10.

    ABB India Limited vs. Union of India

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3581 (HC-GUJARAT)

  12. Gujarat High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    The petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Respondents pass an order u/s 130.

    Devrajbhai Vikrambhai Sambad vs. State of Gujarat

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3580 (HC-GUJARAT)

  13. Gujarat High Court · 18 Feb 2020
    Undervaluation of an invoice cannot be a ground for detention of goods under section 129 of the CGST Act when all the necessary documents as required under section 68 of the CGST Act read with rule 138(A) of the rules have been furnished.

    Sakul Nazar Mohmd vs. State of Gujarat

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3579 (HC-GUJARAT)

  14. Madras High Court · 15 Feb 2020
    Section 50 which was specifically intended to apply to a state of deprival cannot apply in a situation where the State was possessed of sufficient funds to the credit of the assessee. The proper application of Section 50 was one where interest was levied on a belated cash payment but not on ITC available all the while with the Department to the credit of the assessee.

    Refex Industries Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3576 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50

  15. Chhattisgarh High Court · 15 Feb 2020
    Review power can be invoked only when there was any error apparent on the face of record and it was not a substitute for appeal.

    Mangal Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3575 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)

  16. Madras High Court · 14 Feb 2020
    Though the liability of interest under section 50 is automatic, quantification of such liability shall have to be made by doing the arithmetic exercise, after considering the objections of the assesse.

    The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and Anr. vs. Daejung Moparts Pvt. Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3571 (HC-MADRAS)

  17. AAR · 12 Feb 2020
    The applicant is receiver of supply by way of provision for Citizen Facilitation Centres (CFC) and said question raised by applicant do not pertain to supply of goods/services/both undertaken by them.

    In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3567 (AAR)

  18. AAR · 12 Feb 2020
    The applicant, a manufacturer of laboratory medical equipment, cannot sell its goods to the distributor at a concessional rate of 5%.

    In the matter of Equitron Medica Private Limited

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3566 (AAR)

  19. AAR · 12 Feb 2020
    Manufacture, supply, installation and commissioning of lifts/ elevators is in the nature of works contract activity which results in creation of an immovable property, therefore, applicant is not entitled to ITC of GST paid on replacement of existing lift/elevator.

    In the matter of Las Palmas Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3565 (AAR)

  20. Supreme Court · 11 Feb 2020
    This is on the basis of Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General’s statement to this Court that only Rs. 200/- per day is being charged for the filing of late returns, which subject to the outcome of the writ petition will be refunded.

    UNION OF INDIA Vs TAX BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.

    (2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3562 (SC)

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.