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...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
