<?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>2014 (9) TMI 879 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251853</link>
    <description>Eligibility under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 turned on whether an earlier show-cause notice and adjudication covered the same issue as the later declaration. The Karnataka High Court held that the statutory bar in the second proviso to Section 106(1) applies only where the earlier notice or determination and the later claim relate to the same issue, and cannot be applied merely because the periods overlap. As the record did not show careful examination of issue identity, the bar was not finally established. The impugned order was quashed and the declaration remitted for reconsideration on that limited question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 879 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251853</link>
      <description>Eligibility under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 turned on whether an earlier show-cause notice and adjudication covered the same issue as the later declaration. The Karnataka High Court held that the statutory bar in the second proviso to Section 106(1) applies only where the earlier notice or determination and the later claim relate to the same issue, and cannot be applied merely because the periods overlap. As the record did not show careful examination of issue identity, the bar was not finally established. The impugned order was quashed and the declaration remitted for reconsideration on that limited question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>