<?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 (8) TMI 1315 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305423</link>
    <description>An admission of service tax liability made during investigation before 30.06.2019 was treated as quantification for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Scheme and clarificatory circular covered cases under enquiry, investigation or audit where duty demand had been quantified on or before the cut-off date, and &quot;quantified&quot; included a written communication of duty payable, including liability admitted during investigation. Because the taxpayer&#039;s statement recorded during investigation acknowledged the liability before the cut-off date, pending completion of the investigation did not defeat eligibility. Rejection of SVLDRS benefit only on the ground that the investigation had not concluded was unsustainable; the matter was set aside for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2023 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1315 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305423</link>
      <description>An admission of service tax liability made during investigation before 30.06.2019 was treated as quantification for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The Scheme and clarificatory circular covered cases under enquiry, investigation or audit where duty demand had been quantified on or before the cut-off date, and &quot;quantified&quot; included a written communication of duty payable, including liability admitted during investigation. Because the taxpayer&#039;s statement recorded during investigation acknowledged the liability before the cut-off date, pending completion of the investigation did not defeat eligibility. Rejection of SVLDRS benefit only on the ground that the investigation had not concluded was unsustainable; the matter was set aside for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>