https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156381 Penalty under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was confined to the specific statutory default proved on the facts. Where tax-payment default was already penalised under section 11(3a), an additional penalty under section 11(1) for the same non-payment default was not justified. For section 22-A(1), mens rea was not an essential ingredient, but the statutory requirements of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars had still to be established. On the facts, deducting the tax element from a consolidated sale price in the returns did not amount to furnishing figures below the real amount, so penalty under section 22-A(1) could not stand. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:19:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156381 Penalty under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was confined to the specific statutory default proved on the facts. Where tax-payment default was already penalised under section 11(3a), an additional penalty under section 11(1) for the same non-payment default was not justified. For section 22-A(1), mens rea was not an essential ingredient, but the statutory requirements of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars had still to be established. On the facts, deducting the tax element from a consolidated sale price in the returns did not amount to furnishing figures below the real amount, so penalty under section 22-A(1) could not stand. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 21 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156381