<?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>2024 (2) TMI 308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449157</link>
    <description>Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, pre-deposits made during appellate proceedings or investigation had to be deducted while computing the amount payable, because relief under Section 124(1)(c) was to be applied to the tax dues finally determined and Section 124(2) required adjustment of amounts already paid. The Madras HC held that once the declarant&#039;s liability reached the stage of &quot;amount in arrears&quot; after the appellate order became final, the impugned statement had incorrectly quantified the dues by omitting that statutory deduction. It also corrected the petitioner&#039;s own calculation and fixed the revised payable amount for settlement under the scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449157</link>
      <description>Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, pre-deposits made during appellate proceedings or investigation had to be deducted while computing the amount payable, because relief under Section 124(1)(c) was to be applied to the tax dues finally determined and Section 124(2) required adjustment of amounts already paid. The Madras HC held that once the declarant&#039;s liability reached the stage of &quot;amount in arrears&quot; after the appellate order became final, the impugned statement had incorrectly quantified the dues by omitting that statutory deduction. It also corrected the petitioner&#039;s own calculation and fixed the revised payable amount for settlement under the scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>