<?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>1983 (7) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153447</link>
    <description>Penalty for default in payment of advance tax under section 12-B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not automatic and must rest on a judicial assessment of all relevant circumstances, including the dealer&#039;s explanation and whether there was good or sufficient cause. The authority must consider whether the conduct showed conscious disregard or deliberate defiance of the statutory obligation; the maximum penalty is only an upper limit, not a fixed rule. On the facts accepted by the Tribunal, the slump in the tea market and inability to pay punctually negatived deliberate default or dishonest conduct, so the penalty was not lawfully leviable and the penalty orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:32:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (7) TMI 278 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153447</link>
      <description>Penalty for default in payment of advance tax under section 12-B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not automatic and must rest on a judicial assessment of all relevant circumstances, including the dealer&#039;s explanation and whether there was good or sufficient cause. The authority must consider whether the conduct showed conscious disregard or deliberate defiance of the statutory obligation; the maximum penalty is only an upper limit, not a fixed rule. On the facts accepted by the Tribunal, the slump in the tea market and inability to pay punctually negatived deliberate default or dishonest conduct, so the penalty was not lawfully leviable and the penalty orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>