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 [ABT Limited, Represented By Its Company Secretary, S. Elavazhagan Vs The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise]

2. The petitioner asserts that it is a public limited company engaged in the business of supply of light vehicles and parts thereof as also the servicing of such vehicles. The petitioner further asserts that it is a registered person under GST laws in respect of multiple places of business. The books of account of the petitioner for the financial years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 were audited by an audit group by issuing notice in Form GST ADT-01. Pursuant to such audit, a draft audit report containing audit observations was issued. This was followed by a revised draft audit report and eventually the issuance of an audit report in Form GST ADT-02 on 07.09.2023. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 13.09.2023 was issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act) in respect of about 11 audit observations and a separate show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act on 14.12.2023 in respect of about 5 audit observations. The later show cause notice is the subject of challenge herein.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Sunil Kumar Poddar Vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate]

1. The petitioner made zero rated supply of goods and seeks refund of the unutilized accumulated Input Tax Credit. He filed Form GST RFD-01 but his prayer stood rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to upload the shipping details. The appeal preferred before the Additional Commissioner of CGST & CX, Siliguri Appeal Commissionerate also stood rejected vide order dated March 23, 2023.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Yash Building Material Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others]

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Kronos Solutions India Private Limited Vs Union of India and 4 Others]

1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the Revenue.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [JRK Diagnostic Rep By Its Proprietor Krishnan Kulasekaran Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer]

The petitioner assails the assessment order as it pertains to the tax demand arising out of discrepancies between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-2A. As there was no personal hearing was provided, therefore, the impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh assessment order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Console Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department]

Petitioner had filed the subject petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry forward an amount of Rs. 13,94,961/- of CENVAT credit plus a sum of Rs. 8,98,763/- as interest paid in Electronic Credit Ledger maintained under GST through GST 3B return. This court dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition as a representation with regard to grant of interest on the alleged delayed carry forward of the CENVAT credit in accordance with law.

Notification No. 05 /2024 (Central Tax)

In exercise of the powers under section 3 read with section 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017)

What would be done on tax paid on advance receipt if advance has to be refunded in any circumstance

What would be done on tax paid on advance receipt if advance has to be refunded in any circumstance

Should we discharge GST liability for all reverse charge having small amounts of Transaction or any amount limit is there?

It has been decided that Rs. 5000/- per day exemption will be given in respect of supplies received from unregistered person. For supplies above this amount, a monthly consolidated bill can be raised.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [Mohammad Shamasher Vs The State of West Bengal]

In the present case there was a valid e-way bill in support of the transportation. It is only because of non-production of the delivery challan that the penalty has been assessed and imposed. Though possession of all document in support of transportation is the fundamental requirement of law, but as it appears that, the petitioner did not have the intention to evade tax, accordingly, imposition of penalty at the rate of 200% of the tax payable appears to be highly disproportionate and not in accordance with the provisions of law.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [ K.J. Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and Others]

Without delving into the merits of the instant case, it is crystal clear that an opportunity of ‘personal hearing’ was not afforded to the petitioner which is a mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017. let there be a writ of Certiorari issued against the order passed by the Respondent. These orders are quashed and set aside.

Page: