<?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>1987 (8) TMI 406 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154637</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 24(3) for delayed tax payment was linked to the amount validly demanded under the operative assessment or instalment order. When an appellate authority reduced the tax liability, the earlier notice could not support penalty on the revised demand; a fresh demand notice after giving effect to the appellate order was required. The later amendment increasing the penalty rate from one per cent to two per cent was held inapplicable to earlier assessment years, because liability had to be assessed with reference to the law in force when the default arose. The demand was therefore treated as unsustainable on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:44:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 406 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154637</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 24(3) for delayed tax payment was linked to the amount validly demanded under the operative assessment or instalment order. When an appellate authority reduced the tax liability, the earlier notice could not support penalty on the revised demand; a fresh demand notice after giving effect to the appellate order was required. The later amendment increasing the penalty rate from one per cent to two per cent was held inapplicable to earlier assessment years, because liability had to be assessed with reference to the law in force when the default arose. The demand was therefore treated as unsustainable on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>