<?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 (11) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154101</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held inapplicable where excess tax was collected because both the assessee and the assessing authority proceeded on the same mistaken taxable rate. The assessee had collected tax at 30% on the basis that the goods fell under item 135 of the First Schedule, and that basis was accepted in assessment until the correct rate was later settled in the assessee&#039;s own case. As the excess collection arose from a mutual mistake rather than conduct attributable to the assessee alone, the statutory penalty provision could not be invoked, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:44:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154101</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held inapplicable where excess tax was collected because both the assessee and the assessing authority proceeded on the same mistaken taxable rate. The assessee had collected tax at 30% on the basis that the goods fell under item 135 of the First Schedule, and that basis was accepted in assessment until the correct rate was later settled in the assessee&#039;s own case. As the excess collection arose from a mutual mistake rather than conduct attributable to the assessee alone, the statutory penalty provision could not be invoked, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>