<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1074 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339374</link>
    <description>A declaration under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 was unavailable where a show cause notice on the same issue had already been issued and adjudication was pending before 1 March 2013. The Scheme required that no notice or order of determination be in existence for the relevant default, and its proviso also barred declarations for subsequent periods on the same issue once proceedings had already begun. The one-year limitation for rejection of false declarations did not govern the separate threshold question of eligibility. On that basis, the designated authority was within jurisdiction to reject the declaration, and the rejection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:09:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1074 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339374</link>
      <description>A declaration under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 was unavailable where a show cause notice on the same issue had already been issued and adjudication was pending before 1 March 2013. The Scheme required that no notice or order of determination be in existence for the relevant default, and its proviso also barred declarations for subsequent periods on the same issue once proceedings had already begun. The one-year limitation for rejection of false declarations did not govern the separate threshold question of eligibility. On that basis, the designated authority was within jurisdiction to reject the declaration, and the rejection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>