Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
8 judgments · newest first · showing 1–8
S.K. Enterprises filed a writ petition challenging a provisional bank attachment order dated 5 May 2026 issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, which attached its bank accounts linked to its PAN. The petitioner argued that the order did not satisfy the strict pre‑conditions laid down by the …
The petitioner, Amitex Trading Private Ltd., challenged the order dated 29 June 2026 that cancelled its GST registration on the ground of alleged violation of Rule 21(b) for issuing invoices without supply. The petitioner argued that earlier show‑cause notices on the same issue had been withdrawn …
The petitioners, Chimera Infrastructure Private Limited, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 03‑08‑2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST. The petitioners had earlier invoked the statutory remedy provided under Rule 86A(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, to …
Royal Bricks Works, a proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice and a demand order issued by the Bihar State Tax authorities for GST liabilities for the period April 2018‑March 2019. The petitioner alleged that the notice and demand order were not digitally signed, …
The petitioner, Prakash Kumar Chhotu, filed a writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice that jointly issued GST forms REG‑17 and REG‑31, alleging violation of CGST Rules 21A and 22(1). He also contested the cancellation of his GST registration and an appellate order that dismissed his appeal on …
M/s Vaishnavi Builder and Developer filed a writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice dated 09‑05‑2023 and an ex‑parte order dated 15‑01‑2024 that cancelled its GST registration, alleging violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought quashing of the notice and order, restoration of its GST …
The appellant, a dealer in red arecanut, had its consignment detained by the GST Mobile Squad and was served a show‑cause notice under section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The appellant filed objections but, due to business exigencies, paid the tax and penalty amount of Rs 7,20,440 under protest and the …
The Supreme Court examined whether the GST Council’s recommendations are binding on Parliament and the States, and whether the import of goods on a CIF basis creates an inter‑state supply that makes the Indian importer the deemed recipient of shipping services. It held that the Council’s …
