Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a Central Tax proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by a State GST proper officer. Subsequent Central Tax show-cause and adjudication proceedings on the same matter were therefore quashed. For street-light works contracts, the claimed exemption depended on demonstrating that the value of goods supplied remained below the prescribed proportion of the contract value. State Tax adjudication orders and consequential garnishee notices were quashed to permit responses and supporting material, subject to deposit of 10% of the tax demand; the exemption merits remain open.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a Central Tax proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by a State GST proper officer. Subsequent Central Tax show-cause and adjudication proceedings on the same matter were therefore quashed. For street-light works contracts, the claimed exemption depended on demonstrating that the value of goods supplied remained below the prescribed proportion of the contract value. State Tax adjudication orders and consequential garnishee notices were quashed to permit responses and supporting material, subject to deposit of 10% of the tax demand; the exemption merits remain open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.