Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—¦š—²š—æš˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜‡ – š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶ š—›š—¶š—“š—µ š—–š—¼š˜‚š—æš˜: š—™š—¼š—æ š—¦š—®š—Æš—øš—® š—©š—¶š˜€š—µš˜„š—®š˜€ š—¦š—°š—µš—²š—ŗš—², š—§š—µš—² š—§š—®š˜… š——š˜‚š—²š˜€ š—°š—¼š—»š—³š—¶š—æš—ŗš—²š—± š—Æš˜† š—¢š—æš—¶š—“š—¶š—»š—®š—¹ š—”š˜‚š˜š—µš—¼š—æš—¶š˜š˜† š˜€š—µš—®š—¹š—¹ š—Æš—² š˜š—µš—² š—Æš—®š˜€š—¶š˜€ š—³š—¼š—æ š——š—²š˜š—²š—æš—ŗš—¶š—»š—¶š—»š—“ š—§š—®š˜… š——š˜‚š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—–š—¼š˜‚š—æš˜ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: ax dues confirmed by the original authority are considered for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, overriding the Designated Committee's determination.

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: M/s Jainsons, represented by Mukesh Jain, Proprietor š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,11,35,419/- is valid for determining dues under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: On 11th December 2009, a raid led to goods' seizure, and a show-cause notice confirmed a demand of Rs. 1.11 crore.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Court ruled that the tax dues confirmed in the original order of Rs. 1,11,35,419/- should be considered for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Scheme, the Court directed the Respondent to issue a fresh form based on the original confirmed dues, setting aside the previous determination.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Mukesh Jain Proprietor of M/s Jainsons vs. Union of India – Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 22 November 2022 šŸ“œ The ruling confirms that the tax dues confirmed by the original authority are the basis for the Sabka Vishwas Scheme.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own