<?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 (12) TMI 638 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401839</link>
    <description>A pre-notice payment could not be adjusted against the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 because it was not reflected in the statutory ST-3 returns and the Scheme payment period had already expired. The court therefore rejected the claim for adjustment under the Scheme and granted no writ relief on that aspect. It also noted that the order rejecting the requested adjustment had not been challenged. However, the question of verification and possible adjustment of the alleged deposit against the demand confirmed in the order in original was left open for the concerned authority to consider in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 638 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401839</link>
      <description>A pre-notice payment could not be adjusted against the amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 because it was not reflected in the statutory ST-3 returns and the Scheme payment period had already expired. The court therefore rejected the claim for adjustment under the Scheme and granted no writ relief on that aspect. It also noted that the order rejecting the requested adjustment had not been challenged. However, the question of verification and possible adjustment of the alleged deposit against the demand confirmed in the order in original was left open for the concerned authority to consider in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>