<?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>Petition Dismissed: Non-Payment Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme Deemed Non-Compliance; Deadline Extensions Not Permitted.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82566</link>
    <description>The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite receiving Form SVLDRS-3 from the respondent after considering Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner&#039;s reasons for non-payment were inconsequential, as the scheme&#039;s terms and conditions mandated payment within 30 days of issuing Form SVLDRS-3. Relying on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in M/s. Yashi Constructions, the court ruled that modifying the scheme by extending the payment date is impermissible. The Bombay High Court&#039;s decision in Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal&#039;s case, involving a technical glitch, was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner&#039;s failure to comply with the scheme&#039;s terms and conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition Dismissed: Non-Payment Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme Deemed Non-Compliance; Deadline Extensions Not Permitted.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82566</link>
      <description>The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, despite receiving Form SVLDRS-3 from the respondent after considering Form SVLDRS-1 filed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner&#039;s reasons for non-payment were inconsequential, as the scheme&#039;s terms and conditions mandated payment within 30 days of issuing Form SVLDRS-3. Relying on the Supreme Court&#039;s decision in M/s. Yashi Constructions, the court ruled that modifying the scheme by extending the payment date is impermissible. The Bombay High Court&#039;s decision in Shri Arjun Amarjeet Rampal&#039;s case, involving a technical glitch, was distinguished as inapplicable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for the petitioner&#039;s failure to comply with the scheme&#039;s terms and conditions.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:10:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>