<?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>Parallel adjudication by Central and State tax authorities u/s 6(2)(b) CGST barred once one authority initiates proceedings</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96096</link>
    <description>The principal issue was whether Section 6(2)(b) CGST permits parallel adjudication by Central and State authorities where proceedings overlap. Relying on the Apex Court&#039;s delineation of &quot;initiation of proceedings,&quot; &quot;subject-matter,&quot; and inter-authority relations, the court held that once one authority first initiates proceedings, subsequent parallel adjudicatory proceedings by the other are barred; investigative steps not amounting to adjudication may continue. Applying that rule, no further adjudication was permitted here; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Central authority and file its response to the show-cause notice by 31.01.2026, and the petition was disposed. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 18:34:01 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 18:34:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=879170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Parallel adjudication by Central and State tax authorities u/s 6(2)(b) CGST barred once one authority initiates proceedings</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96096</link>
      <description>The principal issue was whether Section 6(2)(b) CGST permits parallel adjudication by Central and State authorities where proceedings overlap. Relying on the Apex Court&#039;s delineation of &quot;initiation of proceedings,&quot; &quot;subject-matter,&quot; and inter-authority relations, the court held that once one authority first initiates proceedings, subsequent parallel adjudicatory proceedings by the other are barred; investigative steps not amounting to adjudication may continue. Applying that rule, no further adjudication was permitted here; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Central authority and file its response to the show-cause notice by 31.01.2026, and the petition was disposed. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 18:34:01 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>