<?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>1988 (8) TMI 368 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102838</link>
    <description>A penalty for non-registration could not be sustained where the dealer was outside the provision invoked in the penalty order and was not given notice or an opportunity to meet the case under the alternative provision. The dealer had commenced business before the relevant assessment year and was therefore not covered by clause (d) of section 8-A(1). The revenue attempted to support the penalty under clause (c), but that ground had not been raised before the lower authorities. In a penal matter, liability cannot be affirmed on a statutory basis that was neither invoked nor put to the assessee for explanation, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 May 2017 10:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 368 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102838</link>
      <description>A penalty for non-registration could not be sustained where the dealer was outside the provision invoked in the penalty order and was not given notice or an opportunity to meet the case under the alternative provision. The dealer had commenced business before the relevant assessment year and was therefore not covered by clause (d) of section 8-A(1). The revenue attempted to support the penalty under clause (c), but that ground had not been raised before the lower authorities. In a penal matter, liability cannot be affirmed on a statutory basis that was neither invoked nor put to the assessee for explanation, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>