Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
