Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned order-in-original and the corresponding summary order were liable to be quashed on the ground that the State GST authorities had initiated proceedings on the same subject matter after the Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings.
Analysis: Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bars initiation of proceedings by the proper officer under that Act where proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by the proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act. The record showed that the Central GST authorities had already commenced proceedings before the State GST authorities proceeded further on the same subject matter. The matter was treated as covered by earlier binding decisions of the same Court applying the statutory embargo against parallel proceedings.
Conclusion: The impugned order-in-original and the summary order were quashed as being without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings on the same subject matter have already been initiated by one GST authority, a second authority cannot validly commence parallel proceedings in view of the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.