Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
