GST Litigation: What It Means and How Businesses Can Handle GST Disputes
Learn what GST litigation means, why GST disputes happen, common GST notices, appeal-related issues, and how expert guidance can help businesses respond correctly.
Karnataka AAR in the case of M/s. Page Industries Limited.
Case Covered: M/s. Page Industries Limited. Facts of the Case: The applicant is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of Knitted and Woven Garments under the brand name of “Jockey”, swim-wears and Swimming Equipment under the brand name of “SPEEDO”. The applicant also gets
Madras HC in the case of M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd.
Case Covered: M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Versus The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise Facts of the Case: The petitioner is an Assessee before the respondent authorities, in terms of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (in short ‘CGST
Bombay HC in the case of GGS Infrastructure Private Limited
Case Covered: GGS Infrastructure Private Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Facts of the Case: By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (I) To set aside and quash the order in
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge Limited
Case Covered: Bharat Forge Limited Versus The Principal Chief Materials Manager Diesel Locomotive Works Facts of the Case: The petitioner herein is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Pune Cantonment, Mundhwa, Pune, Maharashtra. Respondent no.1,
Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Versus Dhiraj Prasad Sahu
Case Covered: Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Versus Dhiraj Prasad Sahu Facts of the Case: An interesting but important question of far-reaching consequence arises for consideration in these appeals. It is this. “Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to
CESTAT in the case of Sourav Ganguly Versus Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Covered: Sourav Ganguly Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Facts of the Case: The reliefs claimed in this appeal, which is directed against the order dated November 12, 2012, passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata confirming the demand of service tax under “business
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Bharti Airtel Ltd.(Pdf Attach)
Case Covered: Union of India Versus Bharti Airtel Ltd. Order: Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate waives notice for respondent. List the matter in the first week of March 2021 for final disposal. In the meantime, the operation of
CA Shafaly GirdharwalDelhi HC in the case of Insitel Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India
Case Covered: Insitel Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Facts of the Case: The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Second Deficiency Memo dated 23rd July 2020 passed by respondent no. 3 under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules for the Financial
CESTAT in the case of M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd Versus C.C.E.
Case Covered: M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd Versus C.C.E. Facts of the Case: The facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is engaged in providing various taxable services and is registered with the department paying service tax thereon. During the course of the
Gujarat HC in the case of M/s Surat Mercantile Association Versus Union of India
Case Covered: M/s Surat Mercantile Association Versus Union of India Facts of the Case: The Petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is challenging the constitutional validity and vires of the Rule 86A of the Central Goods
Kerala AAR in the case of M/s. Habitat Technology Group
Case Covered: M/s. Habitat Technology Group Facts of the Case: Habitat Technology Group (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) is a nongovernmental organization in the shelter sector having sustainable building solutions and green and humane architecture. They are registered as a charitable society. They are
Rajasthan HC in the case of M/s. Venus Footarts Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner
Case Covered: M/s. Venus Footarts Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner Order: Let notice be issued to respondents returnable within four weeks. Till next date, further proceedings pursuant to notices Reference No. ZD081020028967E (Annexure- A/2) and Reference No. ZD081020028982M (Annexure- A/3) dated 21.10.2020, shall remain stayed. List with D.B.