<?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>1970 (7) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150067</link>
    <description>Penalty under clause (b) of Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is not attracted merely because purchased goods fell outside the registration certificate; the provision requires a false representation made knowingly or with dishonest intent. A bona fide or honestly mistaken statement, even if incorrect, does not by itself justify penal action. On the facts, the certificate had been altered in a way consistent with an honest error, and the department failed to prove that the dealer knew the representation was false. The penalty was therefore not legally justified, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 14:00:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (7) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150067</link>
      <description>Penalty under clause (b) of Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is not attracted merely because purchased goods fell outside the registration certificate; the provision requires a false representation made knowingly or with dishonest intent. A bona fide or honestly mistaken statement, even if incorrect, does not by itself justify penal action. On the facts, the certificate had been altered in a way consistent with an honest error, and the department failed to prove that the dealer knew the representation was false. The penalty was therefore not legally justified, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>