<?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>1981 (10) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154040</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was attracted where a registered dealer collected tax on second sales of timber and bamboo, since those goods were taxable only at the first sale and section 22 prohibited collection otherwise than in accordance with the Act. The provision operated on the unauthorised collection itself and did not require proof of wilfulness or neglect, so cancellation of the penalty was unsustainable. However, restoration of the original higher penalty was refused because no demonstrable computational error justified enhancement, and the reduced amount sustained by the authorities was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:54:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (10) TMI 171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154040</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was attracted where a registered dealer collected tax on second sales of timber and bamboo, since those goods were taxable only at the first sale and section 22 prohibited collection otherwise than in accordance with the Act. The provision operated on the unauthorised collection itself and did not require proof of wilfulness or neglect, so cancellation of the penalty was unsustainable. However, restoration of the original higher penalty was refused because no demonstrable computational error justified enhancement, and the reduced amount sustained by the authorities was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>