https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761594 The HC challenged a Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 07.08.2024 regarding alleged fake input tax credit. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4 was conducting parallel proceedings overlapping with State Excise Authorities' investigations, violating CBEC circular preventing multiplicity of proceedings. The Court noted that despite different seller firms being investigated, both State and Central authorities were examining similar facts. Citing Section 6(2)(a) and (b) of CGST Act 2017, which prohibits concurrent proceedings by Central authorities when State authorities have initiated proceedings on the same subject matter, the Court stayed further proceedings under the impugned notice until October 14, 2024, pending respondent no. 4's instructions on transferring proceedings to State Excise Tax Authorities. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761594 The HC challenged a Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 07.08.2024 regarding alleged fake input tax credit. The petitioner argued that respondent no. 4 was conducting parallel proceedings overlapping with State Excise Authorities' investigations, violating CBEC circular preventing multiplicity of proceedings. The Court noted that despite different seller firms being investigated, both State and Central authorities were examining similar facts. Citing Section 6(2)(a) and (b) of CGST Act 2017, which prohibits concurrent proceedings by Central authorities when State authorities have initiated proceedings on the same subject matter, the Court stayed further proceedings under the impugned notice until October 14, 2024, pending respondent no. 4's instructions on transferring proceedings to State Excise Tax Authorities. Case-Laws GST Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761594