<?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 (6) TMI 638 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408742</link>
    <description>Rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, without granting a hearing was invalid. The Scheme requires a statutory process for eligibility verification, estimation of the amount payable and issuance of the statement, and where the estimated amount exceeds the declared amount the declarant must be heard before the final statement is issued. As the designated committee rejected the declaration on the ground that the period, reason and relief claimed were unclear, but did so without complying with the mandatory hearing requirement, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the declarant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2021 10:20:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=647234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 638 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408742</link>
      <description>Rejection of a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, without granting a hearing was invalid. The Scheme requires a statutory process for eligibility verification, estimation of the amount payable and issuance of the statement, and where the estimated amount exceeds the declared amount the declarant must be heard before the final statement is issued. As the designated committee rejected the declaration on the ground that the period, reason and relief claimed were unclear, but did so without complying with the mandatory hearing requirement, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the declarant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>