Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
The statutory bar on parallel proceedings under the GST law applies when the later action concerns the same subject matter, meaning the same distinct infraction, tax liability or obligation, not the year or return in general. Applying this principle, the High Court found that the assessment and rectification orders were unsustainable because the authority did not clearly determine whether the transactions covered by the earlier Central proceedings were being omitted from the State action or whether the State case involved separate infractions. The orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a transaction-wise examination of overlap and exclusion of matters already covered by the Central authorities.
The statutory bar on parallel proceedings under the GST law applies when the later action concerns the same subject matter, meaning the same distinct infraction, tax liability or obligation, not the year or return in general. Applying this principle, the High Court found that the assessment and rectification orders were unsustainable because the authority did not clearly determine whether the transactions covered by the earlier Central proceedings were being omitted from the State action or whether the State case involved separate infractions. The orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with a transaction-wise examination of overlap and exclusion of matters already covered by the Central authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.