https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153632 Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was upheld because the penalty power was confined by statutory minimum and maximum limits, applied only where delay was without sufficient cause, and required a reasonable opportunity of hearing; the delegation was therefore neither excessive nor unguided. A continuing default in filing returns and depositing tax could also be dealt with through a composite penalty order, and separate notices or orders for each day of default were not required once the dealer had been afforded an opportunity to explain the lapse. en-us Mon, 08 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153632 Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was upheld because the penalty power was confined by statutory minimum and maximum limits, applied only where delay was without sufficient cause, and required a reasonable opportunity of hearing; the delegation was therefore neither excessive nor unguided. A continuing default in filing returns and depositing tax could also be dealt with through a composite penalty order, and separate notices or orders for each day of default were not required once the dealer had been afforded an opportunity to explain the lapse. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Nov 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153632