<?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>1989 (4) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157218</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 cannot be imposed where the disputed turnover was already reflected in the books of account and disclosed to the assessing authority before final assessment, and the omission to include it was neither deliberate nor wilful. In a best judgment assessment under section 12(2), penalty requires proof of the statutory ingredients for concealment or non-disclosure; where the assessee had submitted to assessment on that turnover and the appellate findings showed no intentional suppression, the basis for penalty fails. The article therefore states that penalty was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157218</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 cannot be imposed where the disputed turnover was already reflected in the books of account and disclosed to the assessing authority before final assessment, and the omission to include it was neither deliberate nor wilful. In a best judgment assessment under section 12(2), penalty requires proof of the statutory ingredients for concealment or non-disclosure; where the assessee had submitted to assessment on that turnover and the appellate findings showed no intentional suppression, the basis for penalty fails. The article therefore states that penalty was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>