<?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 (9) TMI 1287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443665</link>
    <description>Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 depended on duty being quantified by a written communication on or before 30 June 2019. In an audit context, a mere letter supplying information for verification did not amount to quantification of duty payable, and the first actual demand issued later could not satisfy the cut-off. Because the declarant failed the threshold requirement under Section 125(1), the hearing provisions under Section 127(3) and (4) were not attracted. The rejection of the declaration was therefore valid, and the absence of a pre-decisional hearing did not vitiate the decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2023 21:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443665</link>
      <description>Eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 depended on duty being quantified by a written communication on or before 30 June 2019. In an audit context, a mere letter supplying information for verification did not amount to quantification of duty payable, and the first actual demand issued later could not satisfy the cut-off. Because the declarant failed the threshold requirement under Section 125(1), the hearing provisions under Section 127(3) and (4) were not attracted. The rejection of the declaration was therefore valid, and the absence of a pre-decisional hearing did not vitiate the decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>