<?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 101 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149952</link>
    <description>Penalty for excess collection of tax was not automatic on a technical breach; the authority had to consider the surrounding circumstances before levying it. Because the tax rate had initially been accepted at four per cent and was later reduced on appeal to two per cent, there was a bona fide dispute about the applicable rate, which required factual scrutiny before imposing penalty equal to the excess collection. The penalty orders were therefore liable to be quashed, and the assessee succeeded on this ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 16:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (3) TMI 101 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149952</link>
      <description>Penalty for excess collection of tax was not automatic on a technical breach; the authority had to consider the surrounding circumstances before levying it. Because the tax rate had initially been accepted at four per cent and was later reduced on appeal to two per cent, there was a bona fide dispute about the applicable rate, which required factual scrutiny before imposing penalty equal to the excess collection. The penalty orders were therefore liable to be quashed, and the assessee succeeded on this ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>