https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156713 A statutory ceiling on compounding fees under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be exceeded for an offence treated under section 29(2)(d). Because section 31(b) fixed the maximum at Rs. 1,000, a demand of Rs. 2,000 was unlawful and excessive. Payment made to avoid prosecution did not create acquiescence or estoppel where the levy itself was beyond statutory power, so the dealer remained entitled to challenge the collection. The quashing of the excess compounding fee was sustained. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156713 A statutory ceiling on compounding fees under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be exceeded for an offence treated under section 29(2)(d). Because section 31(b) fixed the maximum at Rs. 1,000, a demand of Rs. 2,000 was unlawful and excessive. Payment made to avoid prosecution did not create acquiescence or estoppel where the levy itself was beyond statutory power, so the dealer remained entitled to challenge the collection. The quashing of the excess compounding fee was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156713