Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only when both actions concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention and period. Here, the later Section 74 proceedings related to Financial Year 2018-2019 and alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices, while the earlier Section 73 action concerned Financial Year 2019-2020 and different return discrepancies; the bar under Section 6(2)(b) therefore did not apply and the proceedings were maintainable. The Court also found that the impugned order had considered the taxpayer's reply, so there was no breach of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only when both actions concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention and period. Here, the later Section 74 proceedings related to Financial Year 2018-2019 and alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices, while the earlier Section 73 action concerned Financial Year 2019-2020 and different return discrepancies; the bar under Section 6(2)(b) therefore did not apply and the proceedings were maintainable. The Court also found that the impugned order had considered the taxpayer's reply, so there was no breach of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.