<?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>1978 (1) TMI 148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151549</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was attracted where a dealer filed monthly returns under section 12-B(1) but did not pay the advance tax within the prescribed time. Section 12-B(1) required monthly statements and timely advance payment on the basis of the preceding month&#039;s taxable turnover, while rule 17 fixed the payment time. Section 12-B(2) applied when advance tax for a month fell short of the tax payable by more than fifteen per cent, and the default arose on failure to pay in time. Later payment did not remove the default or prevent levy of penalty, and the argument that the case was one of non-payment rather than short payment was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:11:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (1) TMI 148 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151549</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was attracted where a dealer filed monthly returns under section 12-B(1) but did not pay the advance tax within the prescribed time. Section 12-B(1) required monthly statements and timely advance payment on the basis of the preceding month&#039;s taxable turnover, while rule 17 fixed the payment time. Section 12-B(2) applied when advance tax for a month fell short of the tax payable by more than fifteen per cent, and the default arose on failure to pay in time. Later payment did not remove the default or prevent levy of penalty, and the argument that the case was one of non-payment rather than short payment was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>