<?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>1967 (4) TMI 194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148367</link>
    <description>Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is procedural and permits State authorities to collect tax and penalty only where the Central Act itself creates that liability. It cannot be used to impose a penalty for failure to disclose turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act when the Central Sales Tax Act contains no corresponding penal provision for that default. The penalty provisions in sections 10 and 10A did not cover the contravention, and incorporation by reference was confined to the law as it stood when the reference was made. The penalty was therefore not leviable and cancellation of the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:47:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (4) TMI 194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148367</link>
      <description>Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act is procedural and permits State authorities to collect tax and penalty only where the Central Act itself creates that liability. It cannot be used to impose a penalty for failure to disclose turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act when the Central Sales Tax Act contains no corresponding penal provision for that default. The penalty provisions in sections 10 and 10A did not cover the contravention, and incorporation by reference was confined to the law as it stood when the reference was made. The penalty was therefore not leviable and cancellation of the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>