https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464545 The SC dismissed the special leave petition challenging the HC's interpretation of Section 124(2) of the SVLDRS 2019. The HC had held that deposits remitted by the appellant during the pendency of the investigation were not eligible for deduction under Section 124(2), as they did not fall within the statutory scope. The SC declined to interfere with that conclusion and upheld the impugned judgment. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 17:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464545 The SC dismissed the special leave petition challenging the HC's interpretation of Section 124(2) of the SVLDRS 2019. The HC had held that deposits remitted by the appellant during the pendency of the investigation were not eligible for deduction under Section 124(2), as they did not fall within the statutory scope. The SC declined to interfere with that conclusion and upheld the impugned judgment. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464545