<?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>2018 (7) TMI 1795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364487</link>
    <description>Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 required rejection of a Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme declaration where inquiry, investigation, summons, or requisition of documents had already been initiated before the cut-off date and remained pending. Departmental communications seeking ST-3 returns and accounts, together with the scrutiny referred to in the show cause notice, showed that the disqualifying inquiry had begun before 1 March 2013, so the declaration was rightly rejected. The absence of a separate pre-decisional hearing did not invalidate the rejection because the provision did not require one, and the prior communications had already put the assessee on notice of the scrutiny.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:44:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364487</link>
      <description>Section 106 of the Finance Act, 2013 required rejection of a Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme declaration where inquiry, investigation, summons, or requisition of documents had already been initiated before the cut-off date and remained pending. Departmental communications seeking ST-3 returns and accounts, together with the scrutiny referred to in the show cause notice, showed that the disqualifying inquiry had begun before 1 March 2013, so the declaration was rightly rejected. The absence of a separate pre-decisional hearing did not invalidate the rejection because the provision did not require one, and the prior communications had already put the assessee on notice of the scrutiny.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>