Cases Covered: SARVESH MATHUR VERSUS THE REGISTRAR GENERAL Facts of the cases: The petitioner, representing themselves in court, expresses dissatisfaction with the underutilization of Video Conferencing infrastructure established by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petitioner alleges that the High Court has completely discontinued
Cases Covered: M/s Margo Brush India and others Vs State of U.P. and another Facts of the cases: It is a case in which the goods in transit were accompanied by proper documents. When show cause notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle,
A discussion revolves around whether an SEZ Unit, that has not exited from a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), is eligible to clear capital goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, as governed by Rule 74(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, when transferring them
Cases Covered: ASHISH GARG V/S ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX Facts of the cases: It is the petitioner’s case that the respondent took no immediate steps to process the said application and the same remained pending for a considerable time. On 23.03.2020,
Cases Covered: Ramesh Kumar Patodia Vs. City Bank N.A. and Ors. Facts of the cases: The bank offered the loan to the petitioner. It was given due to his eligibility on the credit card. The loan was repayable in 12 equal installments. The bank charged
Cases Covered: Anupam Kumar Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors Citations: 1. Ramesh Chandra Jain & another v. State of Jharkhand 2. The State of Maharashtra & another v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & others 3. Jayant and others v. State of
Cases Covered: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VS M/S. M.K. AGRO TECH PVT. LTD. Citations: 1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Mahavir Aluminum Ltd. 2. Ravi Prakash Refineries Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 3. Ravi Prakash Refineries Private Ltd. v. State of Karnataka Manufacturing
Latest update- GST council in it’s 50th Meeting changed the provisions related to the online gaming. New definition is inserted. The tax rate on online gaming will be 28%. This was to nullify the effect of the this judgement. The provisions are passed by the
Cases Covered: Madras tax bar VS Union of India Madras tax bar association has challenged the composition of GSTAT The Madras tax bar association challenged the constitutional validity of section 149 and 150 of FA 2023. These two sections amended section 109 and 110 of
Case Covered: Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Citation: 1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. State of U.P. 2. Assistant Commissioner (ST) vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. 3. Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. vs. State of U.P Facts of the case Petitioner in
