<?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 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400161</link>
    <description>Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, tax dues were treated as quantified where the amount payable had been communicated in writing before 30 June 2019, and the declarant&#039;s written admission for another period also satisfied the cutoff requirement. A discrepancy in the electronic declaration was only a curable error and did not defeat eligibility for the enquiry or investigation category. Rejection of the declaration without affording a hearing was contrary to the scheme and natural justice because the decision carried adverse civil consequences. The declaration was therefore to be reconsidered afresh after hearing the declarant and by a speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1135 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400161</link>
      <description>Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, tax dues were treated as quantified where the amount payable had been communicated in writing before 30 June 2019, and the declarant&#039;s written admission for another period also satisfied the cutoff requirement. A discrepancy in the electronic declaration was only a curable error and did not defeat eligibility for the enquiry or investigation category. Rejection of the declaration without affording a hearing was contrary to the scheme and natural justice because the decision carried adverse civil consequences. The declaration was therefore to be reconsidered afresh after hearing the declarant and by a speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>