<?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>2023 (2) TMI 184 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433669</link>
    <description>A remanded excise show cause notice remained pending for purposes of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, because the original adjudication had been set aside and no final de novo decision existed on the relevant date. Rejection of declarations on the ground that the notices had already been finally heard or concluded was unsustainable. The later expiry of the Scheme did not defeat declarations filed within its currency, and an earlier writ petition dealing only with an interim pre-deposit order did not render the petitioner ineligible. The rejection orders were set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered for appropriate relief under the Scheme after hearing the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=703989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 184 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433669</link>
      <description>A remanded excise show cause notice remained pending for purposes of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, because the original adjudication had been set aside and no final de novo decision existed on the relevant date. Rejection of declarations on the ground that the notices had already been finally heard or concluded was unsustainable. The later expiry of the Scheme did not defeat declarations filed within its currency, and an earlier writ petition dealing only with an interim pre-deposit order did not render the petitioner ineligible. The rejection orders were set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered for appropriate relief under the Scheme after hearing the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>