https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775177 The Madras HC addressed a challenge to parallel orders passed by Central Authority (05.12.2023) and State Authority (20.02.2024). The court referenced its earlier decision in Tvl.Varadhan Infrastructure case, which balanced assessee and revenue interests by directing fresh proceedings while excluding limitation period. However, this precedent was stayed by the Division Bench and Kerala HC took a contrary view. The court held that even if petitioner's appeal against the Central Authority order succeeds, proceedings by the assessing State Authority cannot be challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The impugned State Authority order dated 20.02.2024 was set aside conditionally, requiring petitioner to deposit 15% of disputed tax (in addition to 10% already deposited for the earlier appeal). The petition was disposed of on these terms. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:43:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775177 The Madras HC addressed a challenge to parallel orders passed by Central Authority (05.12.2023) and State Authority (20.02.2024). The court referenced its earlier decision in Tvl.Varadhan Infrastructure case, which balanced assessee and revenue interests by directing fresh proceedings while excluding limitation period. However, this precedent was stayed by the Division Bench and Kerala HC took a contrary view. The court held that even if petitioner's appeal against the Central Authority order succeeds, proceedings by the assessing State Authority cannot be challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The impugned State Authority order dated 20.02.2024 was set aside conditionally, requiring petitioner to deposit 15% of disputed tax (in addition to 10% already deposited for the earlier appeal). The petition was disposed of on these terms. Case-Laws GST Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775177