<?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>2015 (11) TMI 170 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267361</link>
    <description>Payment made under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme was treated as valid compliance where the amount, initially credited under the wrong accounting heads, was corrected to the service tax head before the statutory deadline. The scheme required declaration, payment of at least fifty per cent by 31 December 2013, balance by 30 June 2014, and discharge acknowledgment after full payment. Once the Department adjusted the amount to the correct tax head within time, the declared tax dues stood paid in accordance with section 107. Denial of the scheme benefit on the basis of the original accounting code was held to be hyper-technical and unsustainable, and issuance of Form VCES-3 was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 170 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267361</link>
      <description>Payment made under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme was treated as valid compliance where the amount, initially credited under the wrong accounting heads, was corrected to the service tax head before the statutory deadline. The scheme required declaration, payment of at least fifty per cent by 31 December 2013, balance by 30 June 2014, and discharge acknowledgment after full payment. Once the Department adjusted the amount to the correct tax head within time, the declared tax dues stood paid in accordance with section 107. Denial of the scheme benefit on the basis of the original accounting code was held to be hyper-technical and unsustainable, and issuance of Form VCES-3 was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>