CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
