Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of benefits under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019. Respondents denied benefits solely because scheme deadline had expired, despite petitioner's COVID-related payment difficulties. The HC relied on Supreme Court limitation extension judgments and favorable High Court decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits in COVID circumstances, even for post-deadline payments. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme's objective of liquidating past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation and would cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. Following Madras HC precedent in N. Sundarajan, the court determined scheme provisions were directive rather than mandatory. The impugned rejection order and demand notices were quashed, with directions issued to accept petitioner's payment and issue discharge certificate.
The HC allowed petitioner's writ petition challenging rejection of benefits under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme 2019. Respondents denied benefits solely because scheme deadline had expired, despite petitioner's COVID-related payment difficulties. The HC relied on Supreme Court limitation extension judgments and favorable High Court decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits in COVID circumstances, even for post-deadline payments. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme's objective of liquidating past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation and would cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. Following Madras HC precedent in N. Sundarajan, the court determined scheme provisions were directive rather than mandatory. The impugned rejection order and demand notices were quashed, with directions issued to accept petitioner's payment and issue discharge certificate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
