Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
The court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for transfer of investigation from State authority to Central authority or vice-versa. The object of Section 6(2)(b) is to avoid multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. Once the State authority initiates action, it would be the proper officer to conduct further proceedings. The Central Tax Officer cannot initiate proceedings if the State Tax Officer has already commenced proceedings. The word "subject-matter" means the nature of proceedings. If one authority has initiated proceedings, the other cannot initiate proceedings for the same subject matter. Allowing such action would violate Section 6(2)(b). The court quashed the Blocked Credit Ledger and summons issued by the Central authority as the State authority had already initiated proceedings. The petition was allowed.
The court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the Act treats the empowered officers under the SGST/UGST Act at the central level to be at par and does not prescribe for transfer of investigation from State authority to Central authority or vice-versa. The object of Section 6(2)(b) is to avoid multiple proceedings on the same subject matter. Once the State authority initiates action, it would be the proper officer to conduct further proceedings. The Central Tax Officer cannot initiate proceedings if the State Tax Officer has already commenced proceedings. The word "subject-matter" means the nature of proceedings. If one authority has initiated proceedings, the other cannot initiate proceedings for the same subject matter. Allowing such action would violate Section 6(2)(b). The court quashed the Blocked Credit Ledger and summons issued by the Central authority as the State authority had already initiated proceedings. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
