<?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 (7) TMI 266 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396597</link>
    <description>The High Court of Delhi heard a petition challenging the rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 due to incomplete quantification of tax liability and an ongoing investigation. The petitioner argued that the tax liability had been quantified, contradicting the rejection grounds. The Court issued notice to the respondents and granted them time to file a counter-affidavit. The matter was listed for further hearing, and the court ordered the immediate uploading of the order on the website.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:56:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 266 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396597</link>
      <description>The High Court of Delhi heard a petition challenging the rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, 2019 due to incomplete quantification of tax liability and an ongoing investigation. The petitioner argued that the tax liability had been quantified, contradicting the rejection grounds. The Court issued notice to the respondents and granted them time to file a counter-affidavit. The matter was listed for further hearing, and the court ordered the immediate uploading of the order on the website.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>