<?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>1980 (11) TMI 140 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153007</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was found unjustified because the assessee had not concealed turnover or furnished a false return with dishonest intention. A revised return disclosing the additional turnover was filed voluntarily before assessment was finalised, and the factual finding was supported by the record rather than surmise. On those facts, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:10:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170044" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (11) TMI 140 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153007</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 43(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was found unjustified because the assessee had not concealed turnover or furnished a false return with dishonest intention. A revised return disclosing the additional turnover was filed voluntarily before assessment was finalised, and the factual finding was supported by the record rather than surmise. On those facts, the reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>