Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
