Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 bar initiation of multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities. The petitioner faced three separate proceedings by State authorities for tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 under Section 73, addressing claims of exempted supply and alleged suppression of facts. Central authorities also initiated proceedings for 2018-2022 based on audit observations regarding suppression of taxable value and unreconciled turnover. The Court found no scope for further audit under Section 65, noting that notices under Section 73 were already issued under Section 65(7). Since the issues had been adjudicated by competent authorities, the HC allowed the petition, restraining any additional proceedings on the same subject matter.
The HC held that proceedings under Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 bar initiation of multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities. The petitioner faced three separate proceedings by State authorities for tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 under Section 73, addressing claims of exempted supply and alleged suppression of facts. Central authorities also initiated proceedings for 2018-2022 based on audit observations regarding suppression of taxable value and unreconciled turnover. The Court found no scope for further audit under Section 65, noting that notices under Section 73 were already issued under Section 65(7). Since the issues had been adjudicated by competent authorities, the HC allowed the petition, restraining any additional proceedings on the same subject matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
