<?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>2021 (2) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403744</link>
    <description>Liability admitted and quantified before the 30 June 2019 cutoff satisfied the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 requirement for the investigation, enquiry or audit category, because quantification includes written communication of duty demand and an admission of liability during investigation or enquiry. The declarant&#039;s statement admitting service tax liability, acknowledged by the department, was sufficient quantification, so the declaration was wrongly treated as ineligible. A rejection affecting eligibility and civil consequences could not be made without giving the declarant a hearing; summary rejection breached natural justice. The rejection was set aside and the declaration was remanded for reconsideration with a hearing and a fresh speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 236 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403744</link>
      <description>Liability admitted and quantified before the 30 June 2019 cutoff satisfied the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 requirement for the investigation, enquiry or audit category, because quantification includes written communication of duty demand and an admission of liability during investigation or enquiry. The declarant&#039;s statement admitting service tax liability, acknowledged by the department, was sufficient quantification, so the declaration was wrongly treated as ineligible. A rejection affecting eligibility and civil consequences could not be made without giving the declarant a hearing; summary rejection breached natural justice. The rejection was set aside and the declaration was remanded for reconsideration with a hearing and a fresh speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>