Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
