Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Parallel GST adjudication is barred where the same transactions are already the subject of earlier CGST proceedings and the overlap is undisputed. The Court held that, in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act, the State authority was required to verify the common GST portal record and consider the taxpayer's objection to overlapping show cause notices. Because the impugned order ignored that objection despite clear overlap, the State adjudication could not be sustained. The order was quashed, the State notice kept in abeyance, and the CGST authority was directed to complete adjudication before any further State action.
Parallel GST adjudication is barred where the same transactions are already the subject of earlier CGST proceedings and the overlap is undisputed. The Court held that, in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act, the State authority was required to verify the common GST portal record and consider the taxpayer's objection to overlapping show cause notices. Because the impugned order ignored that objection despite clear overlap, the State adjudication could not be sustained. The order was quashed, the State notice kept in abeyance, and the CGST authority was directed to complete adjudication before any further State action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
