Goods & Services Tax
GST Case Laws

Search GST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-12-14

Consequently, the appeal is maintainable as the defect has been removed.


Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-12-14

Registry in its report dated 11/12/2020 informed that the appellant had complied with the defects pointed out earlier by making the requisite pre-deposit.


Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-12-14

Learned Advocate for the appellant undertakes to comply with the requirement of self-attestation within a weeks’ time. On such undertaking the defects would stand removed and the appeal would be maintainable.


Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-12-14

None present for the appellant and the Registry reported that in spite of notice sent to the appellant they have failed to remove the defects, namely, complying with the requirement of pre-deposit as per Section 35F as applicable to service tax matters.


Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2020-12-02

Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that to ascertain the facts he needs time.


Court: GSTAT Bangalore Date of Order: 2020-11-26

At the time of hearing assessees’s appeals ST/22573/2014 and ST/22574/2014 listed today, it was pointed out by the learned AR that Revenue has also filed appeal ST/21502/2017 along with early hearing application, involving the same issue. Records were called for. On going through the records, we found that the issue involved in appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue is similar. Accordingly, after hearing both sides on the miscellaneous application filed by Revenue, we allow the request of the


Court: GSTAT Ahmedabad Date of Order: 2020-11-09

On examining the records, I find that there was indeed a typographical error in mentioning the date of receipt of foreign exchange as 27.04.2016 instead of 27.07.2016. However, since this is not a case pertaining to the transitional period where the exports were made prior to 01.03.2016 and refund claim filed after the date, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Larger Bench in the case of Span Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd (supra) does not apply. It does not come to the rescue of the appellant since the application for refund was filed after one year from the date of receipt of the foreign exchange even after rectifying the mistake. Accordingly, the application for rectification of mistake is disposed of as follows: “The date 27.04.2016 mentioned in paragraph 10 of the final order may be read as 27.07.2016.”


Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2020-10-15

In view of the reasons as mentioned in the early hearing application and the submissions made by the Ld.Advocate, the Miscellaneous Application for early hearing is allowed. Appeal to be listed on the next siting of the Division Bench.


Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2020-10-14

These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal.


Court: GSTAT Kolkata Date of Order: 2020-10-14

In view of the reasons as mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application and the submissions as made by the learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant, the Miscellaneous Application for out-of-turn hearing of the appeal is allowed. Appeal to be listed before the next  sitting of the Division Bench.