Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court held that once a proper officer initiates proceedings on a subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HGST Act), no other proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The power exercised by the proper officer u/ss 69, 70, 71, and 72 of the CGST Act is judicial, and every inquiry is deemed a judicial proceeding. Issuance of a show cause notice marks the commencement of legal proceedings. The CGST Act and HGST Act do not provide for transferring proceedings from one proper officer to another. The State Tax Officer who initiated proceedings is empowered to summon evidence and documents. The availability of information about fraudulent ITC availed by related firms does not justify transferring proceedings to another authority. Independent action against other firms does not impede proceedings against the firm under investigation. New information can be shared with the investigating authority. The Excise & Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to transfer proceedings to the Central Government. The proceedings initiated u/s 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner company shall continue with the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, who shall examine all aspects revealed relating to tax evasion or ITC.
The High Court held that once a proper officer initiates proceedings on a subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HGST Act), no other proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The power exercised by the proper officer u/ss 69, 70, 71, and 72 of the CGST Act is judicial, and every inquiry is deemed a judicial proceeding. Issuance of a show cause notice marks the commencement of legal proceedings. The CGST Act and HGST Act do not provide for transferring proceedings from one proper officer to another. The State Tax Officer who initiated proceedings is empowered to summon evidence and documents. The availability of information about fraudulent ITC availed by related firms does not justify transferring proceedings to another authority. Independent action against other firms does not impede proceedings against the firm under investigation. New information can be shared with the investigating authority. The Excise & Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to transfer proceedings to the Central Government. The proceedings initiated u/s 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner company shall continue with the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, who shall examine all aspects revealed relating to tax evasion or ITC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
