Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

about 22 hours ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—šš˜‚š—·š—®š—暝—®š˜ š—›š—¶š—“š—µ š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—¦š—©š—Ÿš——š—„ š—¦š—°š—µš—²š—ŗš—² š—£š—®š˜†š—ŗš—²š—»š˜ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: Deposit under SVLDR scheme made on time; technical glitch recredited payment, absolving petitioner of liability. Petition allowed.

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—£š—²š˜š—¶š˜š—¶š—¼š—»š—²š—æ: M/s SK Likproof Private Limited š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Technical glitches caused delayed payment under SVLDR scheme; court ruled petitioner eligible for SVLDRS-4 certificate, refunding recovery amount.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Gujarat High Court ruled that a technical glitch causing payment recredit cannot penalize the petitioner under the SVLDR scheme. Following M/s L.G. Chaudhary vs. Union of India, bona fide attempts to pay within the deadline are valid. Refund of ā‚¹7,68,675/- and issuance of SVLDRS-4 certificate were ordered.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s SK Likproof Private Limited vs. Union of India š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²:09 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling underscores that technical glitches cannot override bona fide compliance efforts under statutory schemes.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own