<?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 (8) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397400</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC treated &quot;quantified&quot; under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as broadened by CBIC circulars and applied a liberal construction to legacy dispute resolution. Where audit proceedings were concluded before the cut-off date, the duty liability was communicated to the taxpayer, and the liability was admitted before 30 June 2019, the requirement of quantification was satisfied. On that basis, rejection of the declaration for alleged non-quantification was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397400</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC treated &quot;quantified&quot; under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 as broadened by CBIC circulars and applied a liberal construction to legacy dispute resolution. Where audit proceedings were concluded before the cut-off date, the duty liability was communicated to the taxpayer, and the liability was admitted before 30 June 2019, the requirement of quantification was satisfied. On that basis, rejection of the declaration for alleged non-quantification was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397400</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>