<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (6) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754427</link>
    <description>Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars Central GST proceedings only when they concern the same subject matter as prior State GST proceedings. An audit notice under section 65 was considered in that context because the notice recorded that proceedings were not restricted on any other subject matter and proposed audit action under the CGST Act. The matter was not finally adjudicated on merits, and the taxpayer was left to respond to the audit notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754427</link>
      <description>Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars Central GST proceedings only when they concern the same subject matter as prior State GST proceedings. An audit notice under section 65 was considered in that context because the notice recorded that proceedings were not restricted on any other subject matter and proposed audit action under the CGST Act. The matter was not finally adjudicated on merits, and the taxpayer was left to respond to the audit notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>