The petitioner is undertaking a works contract for the state government. It could not file the GSTR-3B return in time for want of receipt of consideration. The input tax credit was disallowed on the ground that the time under section 16(4) of the CGST had lapsed. Accordingly, demand was confirmed. The petitioner had challenged Section…

The appellant sought a refund of an amount paid as a deposit during the course of the investigation in 2004. In the first round of litigation, vide Final Order No. A/88363–86366/2019, the CESTAT set aside previous adverse orders passed by the adjudicating authority. Pursuant to such a favorable order, the appellant was successful in getting…

The appellant sought a refund of an amount paid as a deposit during the course of the investigation in 2004. In the first round of litigation, vide Final Order No. A/88363–86366/2019, the CESTAT set aside previous adverse orders passed by the adjudicating authority. Pursuant to such a favorable order, the appellant was successful in getting…

The respondent is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. The respondent was located in the State of Sikkim. Vide Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25.04.2007, the Petitioner claimed a refund of education cess or higher education cess paid by them. The said refund was sanctioned to the petitioner as per the decision of the Supreme Court in…

The petitioner is a works contractor. An order came to be passed for financial year 2018- 2019. It demanded CGST and ASGST. It was challenged in writ petition. There was also a challenge to Notification No.56/2023 - CT dated 28.12.2023 which extends the time limit for passing of orders under section 73 of the CGST…