Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 18A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was attracted when the assessees collected tax at the full rate under section 5 but retained only the concessional portion under a notification issued under section 8A, and whether their bona fide belief and undertaking to refund the excess collection negatived the penal consequence.
Analysis: The notification granted a concession in the rate of tax payable by new industrial units, and the controversy turned on the effect of collection at the full rate and retention of the difference. The Court noted that the issue could be considered in the light of the statutory bar on excess collection and the penal consequence under section 18A, but also treated the conduct of the dealer as material. Relying on the principle that a penal provision is not to be applied mechanically where the dealer acted under a bona fide understanding and made a serious attempt to refund the excess collected, the Court held that the assessees' conduct was relevant. The Court accepted that the assessees had been led to believe that the concession was for their benefit and that they had undertaken to refund the excess to customers.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 18A was not warranted on the facts, and the assessees succeeded.