<?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>1985 (1) TMI 280 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154285</link>
    <description>Failure to renew a registration under section 15-A(1)(g) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 falls within the provision because renewal is treated as a continuation of the original registration for later years. Mens rea is not an essential ingredient for penalty under that clause, since the wording differs from other penal clauses in section 15-A(1) that expressly refer to deliberate or false conduct. Penalty is also not automatic on proof of default, because the use of the word &quot;may&quot; leaves discretion to the assessing authority and requires consideration of whether satisfactory justification exists. The Tribunal&#039;s view sustaining penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:26:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 280 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154285</link>
      <description>Failure to renew a registration under section 15-A(1)(g) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 falls within the provision because renewal is treated as a continuation of the original registration for later years. Mens rea is not an essential ingredient for penalty under that clause, since the wording differs from other penal clauses in section 15-A(1) that expressly refer to deliberate or false conduct. Penalty is also not automatic on proof of default, because the use of the word &quot;may&quot; leaves discretion to the assessing authority and requires consideration of whether satisfactory justification exists. The Tribunal&#039;s view sustaining penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>