<?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 (3) TMI 953 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435567</link>
    <description>A legacy service tax dispute arising from proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 was held capable of consideration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, because the underlying liability, notice and interest demand all stemmed from that enactment and the scheme was to be construed liberally to close legacy disputes. The rejection based on the supposed exclusion of VCES-related matters was found erroneous. The Court also held that an arrears declaration could not be refused merely because the principal tax had already been paid where the surviving demand was for interest on that same service tax liability. The rejection was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 953 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435567</link>
      <description>A legacy service tax dispute arising from proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 was held capable of consideration under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, because the underlying liability, notice and interest demand all stemmed from that enactment and the scheme was to be construed liberally to close legacy disputes. The rejection based on the supposed exclusion of VCES-related matters was found erroneous. The Court also held that an arrears declaration could not be refused merely because the principal tax had already been paid where the surviving demand was for interest on that same service tax liability. The rejection was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>