<?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 (10) TMI 357 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157239</link>
    <description>Penalty for delay in payment of advance tax under section 12-B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not automatic on proof of default. The assessing authority must exercise the penal discretion judicially, consider whether there was good and sufficient cause or a conscious and deliberate default, and give the assessee an effective opportunity to substantiate an explanation such as outstanding sale proceeds on credit transactions. Where the explanation is rejected without calling for supporting material and without proper application of mind, the penalty order is vitiated. The matter was remitted for fresh opportunity and reconsideration of the penalty question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:57:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 357 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157239</link>
      <description>Penalty for delay in payment of advance tax under section 12-B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is not automatic on proof of default. The assessing authority must exercise the penal discretion judicially, consider whether there was good and sufficient cause or a conscious and deliberate default, and give the assessee an effective opportunity to substantiate an explanation such as outstanding sale proceeds on credit transactions. Where the explanation is rejected without calling for supporting material and without proper application of mind, the penalty order is vitiated. The matter was remitted for fresh opportunity and reconsideration of the penalty question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>