<?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>1969 (11) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148716</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to file a return was sustained where the assessee relied on a bona fide belief that cotton purchases were not last purchases within the State, but that belief rested on an unproven factual assumption rather than a genuinely arguable legal position. The court distinguished the earlier authority relied on by the assessee because, in that case, the disputed position itself was truly arguable, whereas here the factual basis for the stand was not established. The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty to a token amount was treated as justified in the circumstances, and the limited stigma attached to that penalty was not a ground for complaint.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 15:03:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (11) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148716</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to file a return was sustained where the assessee relied on a bona fide belief that cotton purchases were not last purchases within the State, but that belief rested on an unproven factual assumption rather than a genuinely arguable legal position. The court distinguished the earlier authority relied on by the assessee because, in that case, the disputed position itself was truly arguable, whereas here the factual basis for the stand was not established. The Tribunal&#039;s reduction of the penalty to a token amount was treated as justified in the circumstances, and the limited stigma attached to that penalty was not a ground for complaint.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>