<?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>2020 (4) TMI 446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394539</link>
    <description>The court held that the petitioner was ineligible for the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013, due to pending Show Cause Notices and prior payments made before the Finance Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the scheme did not apply to individuals in the petitioner&#039;s circumstances and dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing that alternate remedies under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1997, were available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394539</link>
      <description>The court held that the petitioner was ineligible for the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013, due to pending Show Cause Notices and prior payments made before the Finance Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the scheme did not apply to individuals in the petitioner&#039;s circumstances and dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing that alternate remedies under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1997, were available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>