Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
