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
DELHI HIGH COURT [G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST]

This Court is unable to accept that the petitioner can set off its obligation to make a pre-deposit against its claim for the refund of CENVAT credit. If the petitioner deposits an amount equivalent to 2.5% of its liability, the petitioner’s appeal against the order in original would not be rejected solely for want of the requisite pre-deposit.

DELHI HIGH COURT[Flake Shipping and Logistics Vs Union of India]

As an interim measure, this court considers it apposite to suspend the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account in question and direct that the petitioner be permitted to operate the same subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- with the Registry of this Court.

[Hariyana Trading Co. Vs The State of Bihar, The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), and The Joint Commissioner of State Taxes]

The Court is of the opinion that since order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. Impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act.

Advisory: Geocoding Functionality for the Additional Place of Business

Advisory: Geocoding Functionality for the Additional Place of Business

Notification No. 46/2023 (Central Tax)

Seeks to appoint common adjudicating authority in respect of show cause notice issued in favour of M/s Inkuat Infrasol Pvt. Ltd.

Notification No. 47/2023 (Central Tax)

Seeks to amend Notification No. 30/2023-CT dated 31st July, 2023

SIKKIM HIGH COURT [The Icfai University Sikkim Vs Union of India, The Commissioner, of CGST & Central Excise]

The petitioner ICFAI University Sikkim is aggrieved by a communication issued by the Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. This impugned communication referred to an application for the rectification of mistake. The impugned communication passed by the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the Commissioner, CGST, Siliguri Commissionerate is directed to take on board the application for rectification of the mistake filed by the petitioner, consider the same and dispose of it by a written order

DELHI HIGH COURT [T.S. Events and Management Vs Commissioner of CGST Delhi]

The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s GSTIN registration.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Sri Gayathri Agencies, Represented By Its Proprietor M.K. Tamilarasi Vs The State Tax Officer]

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the assessment order passed in respect of the assessment year 2017-18 under the GST Act 2017. The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not granted a personal hearing in the impugned assessment proceedings. The impugned assessment order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration, on merits and in accordance with law.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT [Prima Pradeep Mhatre Vs Commissioner of State Tax]

By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased That this Hon’ble court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ and also direct the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Department, Surat to release the property seized by them. This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all the contentions of both sides are kept open to be raised before the appropriate forum where the petitioners are persuading the litigation in respect of the action taken by the respondents under the provisions of GST.

DELHI HIGH COURT [Sachin Upadhyay, Proprietor of Bhagwati Traders Vs The Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax]

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby, the petitioner’s application for revocation of the cancellation of his GST registration, was rejected. The petitioner’s application for revocation of cancellation of the GST registration was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice within the time specified therein. The impugned orders and the orders cancelling the petitioner’s registration are set aside.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT [Dr Cotton Company Vs State of Gujarat]

The impugned order of cancellation of registration is quashed and set aside with a liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice with detailed reasons for cancellation, if any recorded by the respondent authorities

Page: