<?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 (8) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756909</link>
    <description>A written admission of service tax liability before 30 June 2019 constituted quantification under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had, by letter dated 6 May 2019, admitted a service tax liability of Rs. 22,00,414, and the department later called for payment of that amount. On those facts, the declaration was maintainable because the dues were quantified within the cut-off date. Rejection on the ground of no pre-cut-off quantification was contrary to the record and inconsistent with the scheme&#039;s liberal object of settling legacy disputes. The declaration was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law, and the adverse consequential orders were liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763780" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 613 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756909</link>
      <description>A written admission of service tax liability before 30 June 2019 constituted quantification under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019. The petitioner had, by letter dated 6 May 2019, admitted a service tax liability of Rs. 22,00,414, and the department later called for payment of that amount. On those facts, the declaration was maintainable because the dues were quantified within the cut-off date. Rejection on the ground of no pre-cut-off quantification was contrary to the record and inconsistent with the scheme&#039;s liberal object of settling legacy disputes. The declaration was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law, and the adverse consequential orders were liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>