https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419005 The HC examined whether parallel CGST proceedings could be maintained in two different locations (Siliguri and Kolkata) for the same alleged tax evasion incident. The petitioner company and its director argued that dual proceedings were not maintainable. Finding an arguable case, the Court admitted the petition for further hearing and stayed the Kolkata proceedings until February 9, 2022. The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, with petitioners allowed to reply within seven days thereafter. The stay aimed to prevent unnecessary hardship and ensure procedural fairness. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419005 The HC examined whether parallel CGST proceedings could be maintained in two different locations (Siliguri and Kolkata) for the same alleged tax evasion incident. The petitioner company and its director argued that dual proceedings were not maintainable. Finding an arguable case, the Court admitted the petition for further hearing and stayed the Kolkata proceedings until February 9, 2022. The Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, with petitioners allowed to reply within seven days thereafter. The stay aimed to prevent unnecessary hardship and ensure procedural fairness. Case-Laws GST Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419005