TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 authorities were bound to process the petitioner's earlier SVLDRS declaration first and whether rejection of that declaration as a duplicate filing, while acting on the later declaration, was illegal for want of hearing.
Analysis: The dispute arose under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, where eligibility and relief depended upon the nature of the declaration, the quantified duty already known to the department, and verification by the designated committee under Sections 123(c), 124, 125, 126 and 127 of the Finance Act, 2019. The Court accepted the respondent's position that the scheme did not impose a statutory obligation to deal with multiple declarations in chronological order. Since the later declaration matched the departmental quantification reflected in the audit memo, the authorities were justified in processing that declaration and treating the earlier one as redundant. No jurisdictional error or illegality was found in that course of action.
Conclusion: The challenge to the processing of the later declaration and the treatment of the earlier declaration as redundant failed; the decision was in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the department is not required to process multiple declarations in chronological order, and where one declaration correctly matches the quantified duty, treating the earlier inconsistent declaration as redundant does not amount to illegality or denial of hearing.
TaxTMI 
