<?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>2011 (11) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206538</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the statutory cut-off in the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, holding that limiting indirect tax amnesty to dues covered by demand or show-cause notices issued on or before 31 March 1998 was a valid fiscal classification with a rational nexus to settling existing arrears and reducing litigation, and did not violate Article 14. The Court also held that assessees whose show-cause notices were issued after that date could not claim the Scheme&#039;s benefit, because the Scheme was a complete code and its express eligibility conditions could not be expanded on equitable grounds. The respondents&#039; claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2015 18:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206538</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the statutory cut-off in the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, holding that limiting indirect tax amnesty to dues covered by demand or show-cause notices issued on or before 31 March 1998 was a valid fiscal classification with a rational nexus to settling existing arrears and reducing litigation, and did not violate Article 14. The Court also held that assessees whose show-cause notices were issued after that date could not claim the Scheme&#039;s benefit, because the Scheme was a complete code and its express eligibility conditions could not be expanded on equitable grounds. The respondents&#039; claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>