Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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.