TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the declaration filed under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 on the ground that the penalty amount was not shown in Form SVLDRS-1 was justified, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the designated authority.
Analysis: The declaration was filed under the amnesty scheme seeking settlement of pending service tax dues. The rejection was founded on a technical objection that the penalty amount had not been separately disclosed in the form, treating the declaration as incorrect. In view of the scheme's object and the position accepted before the Court, the impugned rejection could not stand without fresh consideration of the declaration on merits. The appropriate course was to set aside the rejection and remit the matter to the authority to reconsider the declaration and pass a fresh order in accordance with the scheme and rules, with liberty to require a fresh declaration if necessary.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the petitioner's application under the scheme.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the impugned rejection, but the entitlement under the scheme was left to be determined afresh by the designated authority.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
