Limitation start from date when Impugned Order in Form DRC 07 uploaded on portal and not from date of detailed order
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Tenet Networks Private Ltd v. GST Council and Others [Writ […]
Allahabad HC
Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/ quantified in Show Cause Notice
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Sanjay Construction through Authorized Representative Shivendra Kumar v. State of
First Appellate Authority under section 107 of the CGST Act has no power to remand matters to the Adjudicating Authority
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Anand and Anand (Law Firm) v. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods
Allahabad HC rejects IRS officer’s bail plea in GST bribery case
Lucknow, The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail plea of an IRS officer, who was posted as the CGST
Uploading Order on GST Portal Alone Does Not Constitute ‘Communication’
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Section 74 proceedings without specific fraud/ suppression allegation liable to be quashed
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 2
Chinese woman gets bail in Rs 88 lakh tax evasion case. Why CGST dept called her ‘habitual offender’
While granting bail to a Chinese national lodged in jail in a CGST tax evasion case since August last year,
GST adjudication order, wholly unsustainable where demand grossly exceeds SCN proposal
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court at Judicature in the case of Mi Industries India Private Limited v. Union of India
Whether Subject matter of the State GST proceedings and Central GST proceedings are identical involves factual examination and is not a pure question of law
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Meerut Steels v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Tax
Allahabad HC Allows Limitation Relief For GST Appeals Filed After Rectification
The Allahabad High Court has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be extended to
