https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759402 The petitioner was treated as having effectively availed the amnesty scheme because it had already pursued the remand process for filing statutory forms and had deposited the amount payable under the scheme. The Court accepted that the revised demand was received on 16 March 2020, immediately before the COVID-19 disruption, and relied on the Supreme Court's limitation relaxation period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. It also considered the death of the petitioner's consultant as a further explanation for the delay in completing departmental communication. On those facts, the rejection communication and consequential recovery action were found unsustainable. en-us Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 08:23:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759402 The petitioner was treated as having effectively availed the amnesty scheme because it had already pursued the remand process for filing statutory forms and had deposited the amount payable under the scheme. The Court accepted that the revised demand was received on 16 March 2020, immediately before the COVID-19 disruption, and relied on the Supreme Court's limitation relaxation period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. It also considered the death of the petitioner's consultant as a further explanation for the delay in completing departmental communication. On those facts, the rejection communication and consequential recovery action were found unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 19 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759402