<?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>1995 (4) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157769</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was upheld where calendar sales turnover was found in the accounts but was not disclosed in the books or returns for the relevant assessment year. The assessee&#039;s claim that it acted only as an intermediary and remitted collections to a third party failed because no supporting evidence showed such remittance or any bona fide basis for the omission. The Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of penalty was therefore unsustainable, and the earlier intermediary-dealer ruling was held inapplicable on materially different facts. The assessee was held liable for the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:17:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 251 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157769</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was upheld where calendar sales turnover was found in the accounts but was not disclosed in the books or returns for the relevant assessment year. The assessee&#039;s claim that it acted only as an intermediary and remitted collections to a third party failed because no supporting evidence showed such remittance or any bona fide basis for the omission. The Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of penalty was therefore unsustainable, and the earlier intermediary-dealer ruling was held inapplicable on materially different facts. The assessee was held liable for the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>