<?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 (2) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153696</link>
    <description>Where a dealer&#039;s return is found incorrect, but the assessing authority accepts the accounts as correct and completes the assessment on that basis, section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act applies. The text further states that the proviso to section 12(5) permits penalty in an appropriate case even where the assessment proceeds under the relevant sub-sections, and that the non obstante clause in section 12(4) supports that construction. As section 12(5) had come into force before assessment, the minimum penalty under section 12(5)(iii) was treated as validly imposed, and the challenge to invocation of that provision was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (2) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153696</link>
      <description>Where a dealer&#039;s return is found incorrect, but the assessing authority accepts the accounts as correct and completes the assessment on that basis, section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act applies. The text further states that the proviso to section 12(5) permits penalty in an appropriate case even where the assessment proceeds under the relevant sub-sections, and that the non obstante clause in section 12(4) supports that construction. As section 12(5) had come into force before assessment, the minimum penalty under section 12(5)(iii) was treated as validly imposed, and the challenge to invocation of that provision was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>