Sabka Vishwas - (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019
Service Tax : SC held that assessee cannot be denied relief under SVLDR Scheme for not making payment of dues in prescribed time limit due to in...
Excise Duty : M/s. UCN Cable Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Designated Committee under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur) Completion Of Invest...
Finance : Cases involving confiscation/ redemption fine are within the ambit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLD...
Income Tax : THE INTRODUCTION TO THE SCENARIO The fostering of the economic growth and development have been assured and accounted in the hands...
Excise Duty : Memorandum seeking a special measure for the opening of Limited Time Window to process of Payment of Taxes under Sabka Vishwas - (...
Income Tax : The updated return facility encourages voluntary tax compliance, allowing taxpayers to correct income omissions. Proposal to exten...
Excise Duty : As we all are aware that, SVLDRS was introduced with the twin objectives- First, finalize the legacy disputes in Central Excise ...
Excise Duty : Sabka Vishwas – Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme The details of total amount of funds that are locked up in cases at various q...
Excise Duty : Keeping in view the response of the taxpayers to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, the Central Government toda...
Excise Duty : Directorate General of Taxpayer Services, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs organized a Symposium on ...
Service Tax : Gujarat High Court held SVLDRS relief unavailable as service tax was not quantified before 30 June 2019. Partial admission during ...
Service Tax : CESTAT held SVLDRS benefits lapsed as payment was made after the extended deadline. Service tax and interest were upheld, but pena...
Service Tax : The issue was rejection of a declaration under the dispute resolution scheme citing lack of quantification. The Court held that li...
Excise Duty : The Court directed authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application under the scheme. It noted that a co-noticee had alrea...
Service Tax : The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled ...
Excise Duty : CBIC-6/1 /2021 -CX-VI Section-CBEC Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Tax &am...
Excise Duty : In cases where assessee has filed ST-3 return on or before 30.6.2019 and has paid the tax dues in full before filing application, ...
Excise Duty : CBIC instruction on Manual processing of declarations filed by the co-noticees under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Sch...
Excise Duty : Manual processing of declaration filed under SVLDRS, 2019 in order to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Courts to the...
Excise Duty : Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (Removal of Difficulties) order 2020 dated 13th Nov.,2020- procedure for fi...
Jay Shree Industries Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Whether ‘redemption fine’ falls within the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, we find neither word has been defined under the Scheme or the Rules framed thereunder or the principal Act, namely the Central Excise Act, 1944. Indisputably, the […]
Akshaya Aqua Farms Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) The petitioner challenges order passed by the first respondent, the Designated Committee rejecting its application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme. The order is a one liner, which simply says ‘Dear Taxpayer, your SVLDRS Form for the ARN No LD1112190001929 has been rejected.’ No […]
Cases involving confiscation/ redemption fine are within the ambit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in M/S Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 21744 of 2019 dated February 27, 2020] held that taxpayers whose case involves confiscation and redemption […]
The respective authorities was restrained from declaring Company as a defaulter under the SVLDR Scheme and from from taking any coercive action against the Directors, Officials of company as the Income Tax department did not release the refund due to assessee and therefore, assessee could not pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS.
Saraswati Marble and Granite Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Case of erroneous refund excluded even if SCN for same culminating in demand order: Observing that as per Section 125(1)(d) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, a person who has been served with the notice […]
Manual processing of declaration filed under SVLDRS, 2019 in order to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble High Courts to the concerned Designated Committee for fresh decision
New India Civil Erectors Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A careful reading of the query and the answer given thereto would make it clear that if an enquiry or investigation or audit was initiated on or before 30.06.2019 then such a person would not be eligible to make a declaration under […]
Eureka Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court ) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT Heard Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. This order shall dispose of both the writ petitions as facts are […]
Morde Foods Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs Union of India & Others (Bombay High Court) The question is that if the declarant had filed an appeal before the appellate forum and such appeal was finally heard on or before 30th day of June, 2019; whether the declarant would be eligible to make a declaration under […]
We find that impugned rejection of the declaration of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice which has impacted the decision making process thus rendering the decision invalid, it may not be necessary for us to enter into the merits of the challenge as to whether the declaration of the petitioner was in fact valid or not under the category of ‘voluntary disclosure’.
