<?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>1972 (4) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150449</link>
    <description>Undisclosed account books and slips can justify an estimate of suppressed turnover where the explanation offered is disbelieved on facts and the surrounding circumstances support a wider inference of sales suppression; the Madras High Court held that such an estimate was not arbitrary and did not call for interference. On penalty, the court sustained levy for deliberate omission from the regular accounts, holding that intention to evade tax may be inferred from the conduct and that section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act does not require separate express proof of mens rea in such cases. The reduced penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 10:15:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (4) TMI 87 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150449</link>
      <description>Undisclosed account books and slips can justify an estimate of suppressed turnover where the explanation offered is disbelieved on facts and the surrounding circumstances support a wider inference of sales suppression; the Madras High Court held that such an estimate was not arbitrary and did not call for interference. On penalty, the court sustained levy for deliberate omission from the regular accounts, holding that intention to evade tax may be inferred from the conduct and that section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act does not require separate express proof of mens rea in such cases. The reduced penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>