https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338305 The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to withdraw from the compounding scheme due to reconstitution of the firm and other reasons, citing the timeline of events and tax payments made under different schemes. The court distinguished the case from previous judgments where withdrawal was allowed, emphasizing that the petitioner was not entitled to resile from the compounding scheme. Additionally, the court set aside penalty orders in a separate issue, finding no evasion by the petitioner and directing a fresh review to address specific concerns raised in the judgment. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2017 08:40:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338305 The court dismissed the petitioner's plea to withdraw from the compounding scheme due to reconstitution of the firm and other reasons, citing the timeline of events and tax payments made under different schemes. The court distinguished the case from previous judgments where withdrawal was allowed, emphasizing that the petitioner was not entitled to resile from the compounding scheme. Additionally, the court set aside penalty orders in a separate issue, finding no evasion by the petitioner and directing a fresh review to address specific concerns raised in the judgment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338305