<?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 (11) TMI 1394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309553</link>
    <description>Quantification of service tax liability before the 30 June 2019 cut-off was treated as sufficient to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even though investigation remained pending. The court relied on the Scheme and the departmental circular to treat admission and prior quantification during enquiry as meeting the eligibility requirement, so the rejection of Scheme benefit could not stand. The objection based on res judicata also failed because the earlier proceedings had not finally decided the present controversy on merits. The rejection orders were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law and the Scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 22:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 1394 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309553</link>
      <description>Quantification of service tax liability before the 30 June 2019 cut-off was treated as sufficient to avail the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, even though investigation remained pending. The court relied on the Scheme and the departmental circular to treat admission and prior quantification during enquiry as meeting the eligibility requirement, so the rejection of Scheme benefit could not stand. The objection based on res judicata also failed because the earlier proceedings had not finally decided the present controversy on merits. The rejection orders were quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law and the Scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>