https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762153 The Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of application under SVLDR Scheme, 2019. The petitioner's application was rejected as quantification of demand occurred after 30 June 2019. The court held that duty liability admitted by petitioner during investigation prior to the cutoff date of Rs.1,39,58,752 constituted "quantification" under Section 121(r) of the Scheme. Despite petitioner declaring a higher amount in the application as abundant caution, this could not deprive benefit of the scheme aimed at reducing litigation. The court directed respondents to accept the application and inform petitioner of any amount due within four weeks. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762153 The Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging rejection of application under SVLDR Scheme, 2019. The petitioner's application was rejected as quantification of demand occurred after 30 June 2019. The court held that duty liability admitted by petitioner during investigation prior to the cutoff date of Rs.1,39,58,752 constituted "quantification" under Section 121(r) of the Scheme. Despite petitioner declaring a higher amount in the application as abundant caution, this could not deprive benefit of the scheme aimed at reducing litigation. The court directed respondents to accept the application and inform petitioner of any amount due within four weeks. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762153