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...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
State GST authorities were held to lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings where Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the taxpayer by issuing a show-cause notice, since dual/parallel proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding precedent on identical facts, the impugned order-in-original and its summary were treated as without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order-in-original and the summary were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
State GST authorities were held to lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings where Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the taxpayer by issuing a show-cause notice, since dual/parallel proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding precedent on identical facts, the impugned order-in-original and its summary were treated as without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order-in-original and the summary were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
