<?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>1992 (7) TMI 313 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157290</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 18A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was considered in light of dealers collecting tax at the full rate while retaining only the concessional portion allowed under a notification issued under section 8A. The Court treated the statutory bar on excess collection and the penal consequence as relevant, but also held that penal liability should not be applied mechanically where the dealers acted under a bona fide belief that the concession was for their benefit and undertook to refund the excess collected. On those facts, the Court found the dealers&#039; conduct material and held that penalty was not warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 313 - KARNATAKA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157290</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 18A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was considered in light of dealers collecting tax at the full rate while retaining only the concessional portion allowed under a notification issued under section 8A. The Court treated the statutory bar on excess collection and the penal consequence as relevant, but also held that penal liability should not be applied mechanically where the dealers acted under a bona fide belief that the concession was for their benefit and undertook to refund the excess collected. On those facts, the Court found the dealers&#039; conduct material and held that penalty was not warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>