Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
