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...
Where CGST authorities have already initiated proceedings on a given subject matter, the State GST authorities lack jurisdiction to commence parallel/dual proceedings on the same subject matter, being barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Applying this statutory bar and the binding principle that only the originally seized GST authority can proceed further in accordance with law, the subsequent State-initiated show-cause notice and adjudication actions were held not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned State show-cause notice, order-in-original, adjudication order, and summary orders were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Where CGST authorities have already initiated proceedings on a given subject matter, the State GST authorities lack jurisdiction to commence parallel/dual proceedings on the same subject matter, being barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Applying this statutory bar and the binding principle that only the originally seized GST authority can proceed further in accordance with law, the subsequent State-initiated show-cause notice and adjudication actions were held not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned State show-cause notice, order-in-original, adjudication order, and summary orders were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.