<?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 252 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403760</link>
    <description>Under the legacy dispute resolution scheme, a written communication fixing duty liability before the cut-off date constitutes &quot;quantification&quot; for an audit-based declaration, making the declarant eligible. Where the committee&#039;s estimate matches the amount declared, issuance of Form SVLDRS-2 without a specific quantified variance is contrary to the statutory scheme. Rejection of the declaration without disclosing the actual basis of ineligibility and without a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates natural justice. The adverse communications were therefore set aside and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after an effective hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:05:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 252 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403760</link>
      <description>Under the legacy dispute resolution scheme, a written communication fixing duty liability before the cut-off date constitutes &quot;quantification&quot; for an audit-based declaration, making the declarant eligible. Where the committee&#039;s estimate matches the amount declared, issuance of Form SVLDRS-2 without a specific quantified variance is contrary to the statutory scheme. Rejection of the declaration without disclosing the actual basis of ineligibility and without a meaningful opportunity of hearing violates natural justice. The adverse communications were therefore set aside and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh after an effective hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>