A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Trying to get property 'blog_child_category_id' of non-object

Filename: controllers/Frontend.php

Line Number: 444

Backtrace:

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/application/controllers/Frontend.php
Line: 444
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Trying to get property 'blog_child_category_subcategory_id' of non-object

Filename: controllers/Frontend.php

Line Number: 446

Backtrace:

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/application/controllers/Frontend.php
Line: 446
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

questions Online: Edatabook
MADRAS HIGH COURT [enovo India Private Limited, (Represented by its Manager, Indirect Taxation, Shri. Govindaraya Pai) Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Guindy Division, Chennai South Commissionerate of Central Taxes]

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [enovo India Private Limited, (Represented by its Manager, Indirect Taxation, Shri. Govindaraya Pai) Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Guindy Division, Chennai South Commissionerate of Central Taxes]

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Karan Singh Vs State of West Bengal]

It is the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the E-Way Bill up to 8 hours from the time of its expiry. The Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its discretion. On this score, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside.

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT [Solex Energy Limited Vs The State of Jharkhand The Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi West Circle]

The assessment proceedings suffer from serious procedural errors in the absence of a proper show-cause notice. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law afresh after issuing a proper show cause notice

TELANGANA HIGH COURT [Southern Enterprises Vs Joint Commissioner ST]

The issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper if the entire matter is remanded back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Shri Shyam Footwear Vs The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax]

It was essential for the concerned authorities to examine the information as submitted by the petitioner and process its claim for refund in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be penalized for the inadvertent error in submitting erroneous information which has since been rectified.

DELHI HIGH COURT [CCN Digital Private Limited Vs Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax]

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 05.10.2021 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) whereby the petitioner’s bank accounts were attached. The petitioner had also sought directions for the expeditious disposal of its appeal.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Focus Trading Enterprises, Represented By Its Proprietor, Shri Ramachandran Selvaraj Vs The Joint Commissioner of GST Appeals I, The Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai]

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent rejecting the revised claims made by the petitioner on 24.01.2021, 27.01.2021 and 07.02.2021.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Vacmet India Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) and Another]

1. Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

Advisory: e-Invoice JSON download functionality Live on the GST e-Invoice Portal

Advisory: e-Invoice JSON download functionality Live on the GST e-Invoice Portal

Page: