Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Overlapping GST proceedings were not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not participated in the second proceedings to place the alleged overlap before the proper officer. The Court noted that the identity of demand was not enough for immediate merits review and held that rectification under Section 161 remained the appropriate first remedy, as the six-month period had not expired. The petitioner was allowed to seek rectification within two weeks, to be decided after hearing, with liberty to pursue any available appellate remedy thereafter. The Court left the merits of the overlap objection open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
