<?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 (11) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401090</link>
    <description>Duty liability admitted in a recorded statement and acknowledged by the department before 30.06.2019 was treated as quantified tax dues under the Sabka Vishwas scheme, making the declarant eligible in the investigation or enquiry category; rejection on non-quantification was therefore unjustified. The document also states that summary rejection of a declaration as ineligible, without notice or hearing, was inconsistent with the scheme and with natural justice because adverse civil consequences followed. On that basis, the declaration had to be reconsidered afresh after granting due hearing, and the impugned rejection could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401090</link>
      <description>Duty liability admitted in a recorded statement and acknowledged by the department before 30.06.2019 was treated as quantified tax dues under the Sabka Vishwas scheme, making the declarant eligible in the investigation or enquiry category; rejection on non-quantification was therefore unjustified. The document also states that summary rejection of a declaration as ineligible, without notice or hearing, was inconsistent with the scheme and with natural justice because adverse civil consequences followed. On that basis, the declaration had to be reconsidered afresh after granting due hearing, and the impugned rejection could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>