<?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>1973 (6) TMI 53 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150381</link>
    <description>Liability to pay penalty under section 13(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act arose automatically on default in payment within the prescribed time under section 13(1), and the Commercial Tax Officer had no discretion to waive, reduce, or vary that statutory penalty. Because remission was separately placed under section 13(2A) with the State Government, a prior order levying penalty and a prior hearing of the defaulting assessee were not prerequisites to recovery proceedings. The recovery authority could still consider objections that there was no default or that the amount demanded was excessive, but those objections did not require an antecedent penalty order. The petitions therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 10:57:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (6) TMI 53 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150381</link>
      <description>Liability to pay penalty under section 13(2) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act arose automatically on default in payment within the prescribed time under section 13(1), and the Commercial Tax Officer had no discretion to waive, reduce, or vary that statutory penalty. Because remission was separately placed under section 13(2A) with the State Government, a prior order levying penalty and a prior hearing of the defaulting assessee were not prerequisites to recovery proceedings. The recovery authority could still consider objections that there was no default or that the amount demanded was excessive, but those objections did not require an antecedent penalty order. The petitions therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>