Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
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 4813 
Join Channel 
