https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758150 A later State GST show cause notice, adjudication order and demand could not be sustained to the extent they overlapped with an earlier Central proceeding already covering the same subject matter and period. Applying section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act, 2017, the Court held that parallel action by the State authorities was barred only for the overlapping portion. The impugned State proceedings were therefore quashed insofar as they duplicated the Central proceeding, while the State was left free to proceed for any non-overlapping period or subject matter. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 21:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758150 A later State GST show cause notice, adjudication order and demand could not be sustained to the extent they overlapped with an earlier Central proceeding already covering the same subject matter and period. Applying section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST Act, 2017, the Court held that parallel action by the State authorities was barred only for the overlapping portion. The impugned State proceedings were therefore quashed insofar as they duplicated the Central proceeding, while the State was left free to proceed for any non-overlapping period or subject matter. Case-Laws GST Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758150