<?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>1990 (2) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156003</link>
    <description>Amendment to section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, effective from 1 September 1969, was held not to operate retrospectively to support penalty in reassessment for concealment relating to earlier periods. The material date for penalty was the date of concealment, namely when the return was filed or the time to file a revised return expired. Because the amendment affected liability to penalty rather than mere procedure, it could not be applied to concealment, if any, occurring before the effective date. The distinction applicable to procedural amendments governing appeals was held inapposite, and the penalty was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156003</link>
      <description>Amendment to section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, effective from 1 September 1969, was held not to operate retrospectively to support penalty in reassessment for concealment relating to earlier periods. The material date for penalty was the date of concealment, namely when the return was filed or the time to file a revised return expired. Because the amendment affected liability to penalty rather than mere procedure, it could not be applied to concealment, if any, occurring before the effective date. The distinction applicable to procedural amendments governing appeals was held inapposite, and the penalty was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>