<?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>1971 (3) TMI 99 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149943</link>
    <description>Undeclared stock assessment based on a reasoned fresh scrutiny of seized notebooks was not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, so writ interference was unwarranted. Penalty could not be sustained under the sales tax penalty provision without a specific finding that escapement resulted from wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. The assessment was upheld, but the penalty order was quashed for lack of the requisite statutory finding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 15:51:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (3) TMI 99 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149943</link>
      <description>Undeclared stock assessment based on a reasoned fresh scrutiny of seized notebooks was not shown to be arbitrary or perverse, so writ interference was unwarranted. Penalty could not be sustained under the sales tax penalty provision without a specific finding that escapement resulted from wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. The assessment was upheld, but the penalty order was quashed for lack of the requisite statutory finding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>