<?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 771 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449620</link>
    <description>The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 required payment of the amount determined by the Designated Committee within the Scheme period, as separately extended only by the relevant Scheme notification. The Jharkhand HC noted that the Supreme Court&#039;s COVID-19 limitation orders applied to judicial and quasi-judicial timelines, but did not enlarge the distinct statutory time for payment after issuance of Form SVLDR-3. Because the declarant did not pay within the extended Scheme period, the declaration lapsed and the revenue authorities were entitled to proceed, so the challenge to the notice and order-in-original failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 771 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449620</link>
      <description>The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 required payment of the amount determined by the Designated Committee within the Scheme period, as separately extended only by the relevant Scheme notification. The Jharkhand HC noted that the Supreme Court&#039;s COVID-19 limitation orders applied to judicial and quasi-judicial timelines, but did not enlarge the distinct statutory time for payment after issuance of Form SVLDR-3. Because the declarant did not pay within the extended Scheme period, the declaration lapsed and the revenue authorities were entitled to proceed, so the challenge to the notice and order-in-original failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>