<?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 (3) TMI 456 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339953</link>
    <description>For the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, disputed indirect tax dues remained eligible where a demand or show cause notice had been issued and liability was under challenge. The revenue could not reject the declaration merely because it treated the arrears as final, since the petitioners had disputed the demand and an appeal was pending. The communication rejecting the declaration was therefore unsustainable, and the declaration had to be processed under the Scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2017 06:22:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 456 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339953</link>
      <description>For the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, disputed indirect tax dues remained eligible where a demand or show cause notice had been issued and liability was under challenge. The revenue could not reject the declaration merely because it treated the arrears as final, since the petitioners had disputed the demand and an appeal was pending. The communication rejecting the declaration was therefore unsustainable, and the declaration had to be processed under the Scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>