<?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>1986 (2) TMI 308 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154501</link>
    <description>Delay in filing returns and non-payment of tax attracted penalty under section 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, because the explanation based on a strike in the vehicle manufacturer&#039;s factory had no relevance to those defaults. The plea of sufficient cause was treated as a factual matter not giving rise to a reference question on these facts, and the penalty was held justified. The retrospective amendment by Amending Act No. 13 of 1971 was given effect from the commencement of the Act and validated penalties already imposed, so penalty could also be imposed for non-deposit of tax along with the return. The amended provision governed and upheld the penalty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:25:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 308 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154501</link>
      <description>Delay in filing returns and non-payment of tax attracted penalty under section 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, because the explanation based on a strike in the vehicle manufacturer&#039;s factory had no relevance to those defaults. The plea of sufficient cause was treated as a factual matter not giving rise to a reference question on these facts, and the penalty was held justified. The retrospective amendment by Amending Act No. 13 of 1971 was given effect from the commencement of the Act and validated penalties already imposed, so penalty could also be imposed for non-deposit of tax along with the return. The amended provision governed and upheld the penalty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>