<?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 (4) TMI 287 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153113</link>
    <description>Retrospective validation provisions under the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 revived penalty orders earlier cancelled in rectification, overriding contrary orders and preserving the State penalty regime for Central sales tax assessments. Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was therefore attracted as a penalty provision linked to tax assessment. The penalty for the first period was upheld because the record showed a substantial turnover discrepancy and unaccepted explanations, supporting concealment and false returns. The penalty for the second period was set aside because the assessment had been remanded and the tax liability remained liable to reduction, so the penalty could not be maintained independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 16:17:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 287 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153113</link>
      <description>Retrospective validation provisions under the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976 revived penalty orders earlier cancelled in rectification, overriding contrary orders and preserving the State penalty regime for Central sales tax assessments. Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was therefore attracted as a penalty provision linked to tax assessment. The penalty for the first period was upheld because the record showed a substantial turnover discrepancy and unaccepted explanations, supporting concealment and false returns. The penalty for the second period was set aside because the assessment had been remanded and the tax liability remained liable to reduction, so the penalty could not be maintained independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>