https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763009 Where CGST proceedings had already been initiated on the same subject matter, State GST authorities could not validly continue parallel action after the jurisdictional objection under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on prior CGST coverage of the dispute, and the respondents accepted that the State notice was subsequent to those proceedings. In these circumstances, the State GST order was not sustainable and was quashed and set aside, with the proceedings allowed to continue before the CGST authorities in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763009 Where CGST proceedings had already been initiated on the same subject matter, State GST authorities could not validly continue parallel action after the jurisdictional objection under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on prior CGST coverage of the dispute, and the respondents accepted that the State notice was subsequent to those proceedings. In these circumstances, the State GST order was not sustainable and was quashed and set aside, with the proceedings allowed to continue before the CGST authorities in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Fri, 06 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763009