https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295765 Rectification under the dispute resolution scheme was sustained even though it occurred beyond the thirty-day period, because the original statement had been issued on a mistaken and materially false factual premise. The Court treated the time limit for correcting arithmetical or clerical errors as not mandatory in these circumstances, where the scheme could not be used to preserve an incorrect benefit obtained through false particulars. It also held that the petitioner, having failed to controvert non-filing of returns and having made materially incorrect declarations, could not insist on a discharge certificate or other relief under the scheme. The writ petition therefore failed. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jun 2021 10:17:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295765 Rectification under the dispute resolution scheme was sustained even though it occurred beyond the thirty-day period, because the original statement had been issued on a mistaken and materially false factual premise. The Court treated the time limit for correcting arithmetical or clerical errors as not mandatory in these circumstances, where the scheme could not be used to preserve an incorrect benefit obtained through false particulars. It also held that the petitioner, having failed to controvert non-filing of returns and having made materially incorrect declarations, could not insist on a discharge certificate or other relief under the scheme. The writ petition therefore failed. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295765