The HC refused relief and dismissed the petition, upholding scope for a second show-cause notice where an earlier O-O had confirmed demand based on discrepancies between GSTR-7 and the petitioner's GSTR-1/GSTR-3B for 2018-19. The court applied the twofold test for "same subject matter": whether an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability on the same facts, and whether the demand or relief sought is identical. It held that parallel proceedings by distinct tax administrations are impermissible only when both limbs are satisfied; distinct infractions concerning similar liabilities do not attract the statutory bar. The petitioner was directed to substantiate its case in light of the higher court's guidance; petition disposed.
The HC refused relief and dismissed the petition, upholding scope for a second show-cause notice where an earlier O-O had confirmed demand based on discrepancies between GSTR-7 and the petitioner's GSTR-1/GSTR-3B for 2018-19. The court applied the twofold test for "same subject matter": whether an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability on the same facts, and whether the demand or relief sought is identical. It held that parallel proceedings by distinct tax administrations are impermissible only when both limbs are satisfied; distinct infractions concerning similar liabilities do not attract the statutory bar. The petitioner was directed to substantiate its case in light of the higher court's guidance; petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
