https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152433 Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, was described as a valid penalty provision because it prescribed a minimum and maximum daily penalty, required a finding of default without sufficient cause, and ensured a hearing before imposition. The text also explains that default in filing returns is distinct from default in paying tax, so the separate consequences under sections 25, 47 and 51 do not create unconstitutional cumulative punishment or attract double jeopardy principles. It further states that existing return-filing rules continued after repeal of the earlier law until replaced, and the later rules maintained the regulatory framework. en-us Mon, 14 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:15:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152433 Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, was described as a valid penalty provision because it prescribed a minimum and maximum daily penalty, required a finding of default without sufficient cause, and ensured a hearing before imposition. The text also explains that default in filing returns is distinct from default in paying tax, so the separate consequences under sections 25, 47 and 51 do not create unconstitutional cumulative punishment or attract double jeopardy principles. It further states that existing return-filing rules continued after repeal of the earlier law until replaced, and the later rules maintained the regulatory framework. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 14 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152433