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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.