<?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>2025 (6) TMI 533 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772420</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019. The respondent department had denied benefits solely because the scheme&#039;s time limit had expired. The court relied on precedents from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi HCs which granted extensions due to COVID-19 pandemic, even for payments made after 30.06.2020. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme&#039;s objective and cause injustice to an otherwise eligible petitioner. The impugned order and demand notices were quashed, and the petitioner was granted another opportunity to make payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 07:29:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 533 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772420</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019. The respondent department had denied benefits solely because the scheme&#039;s time limit had expired. The court relied on precedents from Madras, Bombay, Gujarat, and Delhi HCs which granted extensions due to COVID-19 pandemic, even for payments made after 30.06.2020. The court held that denying scheme benefits would contradict the scheme&#039;s objective and cause injustice to an otherwise eligible petitioner. The impugned order and demand notices were quashed, and the petitioner was granted another opportunity to make payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>