https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772248 HC allowed petitioner's challenge to demand notices and SVLDRS-3 forms that reclassified petitioner from investigation to arrears category, increasing tax liability. Court relied on SC judgment extending limitation periods and HC decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits despite COVID-19 pandemic delays beyond 30.06.2020 deadline. Court held SVLDR scheme provisions are directive, not mandatory, emphasizing scheme's objective to liquidate past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation. Denying benefits would contradict scheme's purpose and cause injustice to eligible declarant. Court directed respondents to accept petitioner's payment, recalculate tax liability under scheme, and issue discharge certificate. en-us Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772248 HC allowed petitioner's challenge to demand notices and SVLDRS-3 forms that reclassified petitioner from investigation to arrears category, increasing tax liability. Court relied on SC judgment extending limitation periods and HC decisions from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi granting SVLDRS benefits despite COVID-19 pandemic delays beyond 30.06.2020 deadline. Court held SVLDR scheme provisions are directive, not mandatory, emphasizing scheme's objective to liquidate past central excise and service tax disputes before GST implementation. Denying benefits would contradict scheme's purpose and cause injustice to eligible declarant. Court directed respondents to accept petitioner's payment, recalculate tax liability under scheme, and issue discharge certificate. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772248