<?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>2022 (4) TMI 133 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420467</link>
    <description>Benefit under a statutory settlement or amnesty scheme is unavailable where the declarant fails to make payment within the prescribed period and no legally sustainable basis exists to treat the delay as excusable. The designated committee had issued Form No. 3 requiring payment within 30 days under the scheme, but the petitioner did not pay within that period or by the extended date. The Court found the delay was not a mere technical lapse, noted that the original period had already expired before the Covid-19 lockdown, and held that the petitioner&#039;s conduct was inconsistent with timely compliance. The writ petition therefore failed, and the subsequent demand was not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 133 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420467</link>
      <description>Benefit under a statutory settlement or amnesty scheme is unavailable where the declarant fails to make payment within the prescribed period and no legally sustainable basis exists to treat the delay as excusable. The designated committee had issued Form No. 3 requiring payment within 30 days under the scheme, but the petitioner did not pay within that period or by the extended date. The Court found the delay was not a mere technical lapse, noted that the original period had already expired before the Covid-19 lockdown, and held that the petitioner&#039;s conduct was inconsistent with timely compliance. The writ petition therefore failed, and the subsequent demand was not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>