<?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 (10) TMI 260 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154411</link>
    <description>Where a specific penalty provision squarely covers concealment of turnover or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the residuary penalty clause cannot be applied. Concealed diary entries and unreturned documents, if not reflected in the assessment return, were treated as conduct falling within the specific provision for concealment rather than the general clause for wilful contravention not otherwise provided for. The earlier penalty orders were set aside because the matter had been considered on the wrong statutory basis. The issue was remitted for fresh determination of levy and quantum under the correct provision, leaving the substantive penalty question open for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:54:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (10) TMI 260 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154411</link>
      <description>Where a specific penalty provision squarely covers concealment of turnover or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the residuary penalty clause cannot be applied. Concealed diary entries and unreturned documents, if not reflected in the assessment return, were treated as conduct falling within the specific provision for concealment rather than the general clause for wilful contravention not otherwise provided for. The earlier penalty orders were set aside because the matter had been considered on the wrong statutory basis. The issue was remitted for fresh determination of levy and quantum under the correct provision, leaving the substantive penalty question open for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>