https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158241 Section 18-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as imposing absolute liability for collecting tax in excess of the permissible rate, so mens rea was not required to attract penalty. The statutory scheme was read as protecting consumers and preventing unjust enrichment, displacing the ordinary presumption of intention in this fiscal context. A belated offer to refund excess collections did not automatically defeat penalty; it was only a relevant factor in the authority's discretion. Because the refund proposal was delayed and lacked a convincing mechanism, it could be treated as lacking bona fides, and penalty could still be imposed. en-us Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:55:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158241 Section 18-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as imposing absolute liability for collecting tax in excess of the permissible rate, so mens rea was not required to attract penalty. The statutory scheme was read as protecting consumers and preventing unjust enrichment, displacing the ordinary presumption of intention in this fiscal context. A belated offer to refund excess collections did not automatically defeat penalty; it was only a relevant factor in the authority's discretion. Because the refund proposal was delayed and lacked a convincing mechanism, it could be treated as lacking bona fides, and penalty could still be imposed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158241