<?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 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157310</link>
    <description>Penalty for violation of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 requires a false representation and guilty intent; a mere later finding that the purchased goods were not covered by the registration certificate does not establish the offence without mens rea. On the facts, the goods described in the certificate and the goods purchased were sufficiently connected, so the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was upheld and no penalty was leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 18:26:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157310</link>
      <description>Penalty for violation of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 requires a false representation and guilty intent; a mere later finding that the purchased goods were not covered by the registration certificate does not establish the offence without mens rea. On the facts, the goods described in the certificate and the goods purchased were sufficiently connected, so the Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was upheld and no penalty was leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>