<?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 (7) TMI 5 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773937</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner, unable to deposit dues during COVID-19, sought time to clear outstanding amounts. The court held that rejecting the case solely because the scheme had ended was unsustainable, citing SC judgment on limitation extension and various HC decisions granting SVLDRS benefits despite payments after 30.06.2020 due to pandemic circumstances. The court found denying benefits would contradict the scheme&#039;s objective and cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. The impugned order and demand notices were quashed, with directions to accept payment and issue discharge certificate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 08:47:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 5 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773937</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The petitioner, unable to deposit dues during COVID-19, sought time to clear outstanding amounts. The court held that rejecting the case solely because the scheme had ended was unsustainable, citing SC judgment on limitation extension and various HC decisions granting SVLDRS benefits despite payments after 30.06.2020 due to pandemic circumstances. The court found denying benefits would contradict the scheme&#039;s objective and cause injustice to an otherwise eligible declarant. The impugned order and demand notices were quashed, with directions to accept payment and issue discharge certificate.</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=773937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>