https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149743 Delay was not accepted as a ground to refuse the writ petition because recovery proceedings were still pending, the petitioner had earlier approached the court in revision within time, and the later writ was treated as a continuation raising an additional constitutional challenge. On penalty, the State recovery machinery under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was held to be only procedural; the liability to penalty had to arise from the Central Act itself or by express adoption. As the Central Act contained no corresponding authority, penalty under the Mysore Sales Tax Act could not be imposed for default in payment of Central sales tax, and the demand and recovery steps were quashed. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 May 2013 18:10:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149743 Delay was not accepted as a ground to refuse the writ petition because recovery proceedings were still pending, the petitioner had earlier approached the court in revision within time, and the later writ was treated as a continuation raising an additional constitutional challenge. On penalty, the State recovery machinery under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was held to be only procedural; the liability to penalty had to arise from the Central Act itself or by express adoption. As the Central Act contained no corresponding authority, penalty under the Mysore Sales Tax Act could not be imposed for default in payment of Central sales tax, and the demand and recovery steps were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149743