TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>HC upholds proceedings initiation based on M/s. Tulsi Pulses v. Union of India precedent, issues notice with July 21, 2025 return date</h1> <h3>M/s. Tulsi Pulses, through its authorised Partner Nitinkumar S/o. Mohanlal Taori Versus Union of India, through Ltd. Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors.</h3> M/s. Tulsi Pulses, through its authorised Partner Nitinkumar S/o. Mohanlal Taori Versus Union of India, through Ltd. Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. ... The Bombay High Court, through Nitin W. Sambre and M. M. Nerlikar, JJ., addressed a petition challenging the initiation of proceedings under Sections 67 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act'). The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Avinash Poddar, contended that the Assistant Commissioner who conducted the investigation could not also act as the Adjudicating Officer, rendering the proceedings impermissible. Reliance was placed on the initial notice dated 20/12/2023, subsequent proceedings, and Clause 6 of the Commissioner (GST) Circular dated 09/02/2018, which allegedly prohibits the investigating authority from issuing show cause notices or passing orders. The petitioner further relied on the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in *Swastik Plastics vs. Commissioner of DGST* (Writ Petition (C) 5680/2022), which supported this position. The Court issued notice to respondents and, considering the submissions and the cited Circular and precedent, directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pending further orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
