<?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>1982 (6) TMI 245 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153932</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires proof of actual turnover and deliberate non-disclosure; unexplained slips or stock discrepancies may support best judgment assessment, but they do not by themselves establish wilful suppression. Where the assessee consistently denies taxable turnover and claims to be only a broker, the ingredients for penalty are not satisfied. The deletion of penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:21:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 245 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153932</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires proof of actual turnover and deliberate non-disclosure; unexplained slips or stock discrepancies may support best judgment assessment, but they do not by themselves establish wilful suppression. Where the assessee consistently denies taxable turnover and claims to be only a broker, the ingredients for penalty are not satisfied. The deletion of penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>