Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
The principal issue was whether Section 6(2)(b) CGST permits parallel adjudication by Central and State authorities where proceedings overlap. Relying on the Apex Court's delineation of "initiation of proceedings," "subject-matter," and inter-authority relations, the court held that once one authority first initiates proceedings, subsequent parallel adjudicatory proceedings by the other are barred; investigative steps not amounting to adjudication may continue. Applying that rule, no further adjudication was permitted here; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Central authority and file its response to the show-cause notice by 31.01.2026, and the petition was disposed. - HC
The principal issue was whether Section 6(2)(b) CGST permits parallel adjudication by Central and State authorities where proceedings overlap. Relying on the Apex Court's delineation of "initiation of proceedings," "subject-matter," and inter-authority relations, the court held that once one authority first initiates proceedings, subsequent parallel adjudicatory proceedings by the other are barred; investigative steps not amounting to adjudication may continue. Applying that rule, no further adjudication was permitted here; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Central authority and file its response to the show-cause notice by 31.01.2026, and the petition was disposed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
