<?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>2020 (7) TMI 849 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465409</link>
    <description>The Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 distinguishes voluntary disclosure from disputed tax dues arising from pending enquiry, investigation, audit or appeal. Where the amount is voluntarily disclosed by the declarant, the declared duty itself constitutes the tax dues, and relief under the Scheme is not available under Section 124(1)(e). The deduction mechanism under Section 124(2) applies only when pre-deposits or deposits during the specified proceedings are shown. As no notice, proceeding or material established that the claim fell within those categories, the Kerala HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed relief and the demand statement was not liable to be interfered with under Article 226.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:50:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 849 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465409</link>
      <description>The Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 distinguishes voluntary disclosure from disputed tax dues arising from pending enquiry, investigation, audit or appeal. Where the amount is voluntarily disclosed by the declarant, the declared duty itself constitutes the tax dues, and relief under the Scheme is not available under Section 124(1)(e). The deduction mechanism under Section 124(2) applies only when pre-deposits or deposits during the specified proceedings are shown. As no notice, proceeding or material established that the claim fell within those categories, the Kerala HC held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed relief and the demand statement was not liable to be interfered with under Article 226.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>