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.
Allahabad HC in the case of Anandeshwar Traders Versus State of U.P.
Case Covered: High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Anandeshwar Traders Vs. The state of U.P. Issue: Petitioners have generated 2 Eway bills for the movement of goods and the goods in transit were intercepted and seized in spite of having proper Invoice, Bilty,
Bombay HC in the Case of Swojas Energy Foods Ltd. & ors. V/s. SEBI & ors.
Case Covered: Swojas Energy Foods Ltd. and ors. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and ors. Facts of the Case: The Appeal has been filed by petitioners against the Freezing of their Demat accounts by Respondent no. 5 on the ground of statutory order.
Bombay HC in the case of Daulat Samirmal Mehta Versus Union of India
Case Covered: Daulat Samirmal Mehta Versus Union of India Facts of the Case: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutional validity of section 132(1) (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly “the CGST Act” hereinafter)
Gujarat HC in the case of M/s Bhumi Associate Versus Union of India
Case Covered: M/s Bhumi Associate Versus Union of India Common Order: We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants. We have also heard Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. The officers of the concerned department who were asked to join the video conference did join but at a very later stage. They were unable to witness the discussion that took place between the Court and Mr. Vyas. We propose to pass an interim order issuing the following directions. “The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, as well as the Chief Commissioner of
Delhi HC in the case of Lupita Saluja Versus DGGI
Case Covered: Lupita Saluja Versus DGGI Facts of the Case: The present petition has been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in relation to the inquiry/investigation being conducted by the respondent under Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The
Delhi HC in the case of Del Small Ice Cream Manufacturers Welfare’s Association Versus Union of India
Case Covered: Del Small Ice Cream Manufacturers Welfare’s Association Versus Union of India Facts of the Case: The petitioner, claiming to represent the interest of more than 50 small scale ice cream manufacturing units operating in the National Capital Territory of Delhi, has filed this
Gujarat HC in the case of M/s Hemani Intermediates Private Limited Versus Union of India
Case Covered: M/s Hemani Intermediates Private Limited Versus Union of India Oral Order: This is one more matter amongst many other matters that have come up before this Court in the last one week of undue harassment, coercion, etc. at the end of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively. We take note of the averments made in para11 of the Memorandum of the writ application. The same reads thus: “11. The petitioner states that during
Gujarat HC in the case of M/s Apurva Chemicals Private Limited Versus Union of India
Case Covered: M/s Apurva Chemicals Private Limited Versus Union of India Oral Order: We have heard Mr. Avinash Poddar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant. This is one more matter wherein serious allegations of harassment, coercion, threats, etc. have been alleged against the respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively herein. It appears that the search was undertaken under Section 67 of the Act at the
Supreme Court in the case of C. Pradeep Versus The Commissioner of GST And Central Excise
Case Covered: C. Pradeep Versus The Commissioner of GST And Central Excise Order: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indisputably assessment for the relevant period has not been completed by the Department so far. In which case, invoking Section 132 of the Central Goods
Allahabad HC in the case of M/s Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India
Case Covered: M/s Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India Facts of the Case: Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the impugned orders passed in this batch of writ petitions are appealable before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the
Madras HC in the case of S. Dilliraj Versus The Deputy Director
Case Covered: S. Dilliraj Versus The Deputy Director, The Directorate of Enforcement Facts of the Case: Undisputed facts: First Leasing Company of India Limited (in short “FLCI”) was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was into the business of giving industrial finance.
Madras HC in the case of R. Viswanathan Versus The Assistant Director
Case Covered: R. Viswanathan Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement Facts of the Case: The incontrovertible facts are as under: Viswanathan (1 st petitioner/A.1) was into the business of imports and exports in the name and style of “Mercantile India”. Between 1999-2002, Viswanathan (A.1)