Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
