<?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 (12) TMI 469 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762889</link>
    <description>A declarant seeking deduction under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 had to prove with credible records that the claimed CENVAT credit or deposit was actually paid or utilised during the relevant enquiry or investigation period. The petitioner gave inconsistent dates, relied on a belated return and a general letter, and failed to produce the CENVAT credit ledger or other primary documents despite opportunities. The verification-based computation by the department therefore stood, and adverse inference was justified against the petitioner. The claimed deduction under Section 124(2) was rejected, and the challenge to the SVLDRS determination failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:58:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 469 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762889</link>
      <description>A declarant seeking deduction under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 had to prove with credible records that the claimed CENVAT credit or deposit was actually paid or utilised during the relevant enquiry or investigation period. The petitioner gave inconsistent dates, relied on a belated return and a general letter, and failed to produce the CENVAT credit ledger or other primary documents despite opportunities. The verification-based computation by the department therefore stood, and adverse inference was justified against the petitioner. The claimed deduction under Section 124(2) was rejected, and the challenge to the SVLDRS determination failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>