https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338619 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting the VCES application, emphasizing the importance of rectifying unintentional errors in the declaration. It held that rejection without allowing rectification, especially when tax dues were paid in full, was unjust. The appellant's typographical error did not bar benefits under the scheme, as the correct tax liability was declared and paid partially. However, the failure to include Service Tax liability for works for APMC resulted in partial allowance of the appeal, denying benefits related to that aspect. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Sep 2017 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338619 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting the VCES application, emphasizing the importance of rectifying unintentional errors in the declaration. It held that rejection without allowing rectification, especially when tax dues were paid in full, was unjust. The appellant's typographical error did not bar benefits under the scheme, as the correct tax liability was declared and paid partially. However, the failure to include Service Tax liability for works for APMC resulted in partial allowance of the appeal, denying benefits related to that aspect. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338619