<?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>1996 (3) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158289</link>
    <description>The expression &quot;month or part thereof&quot; in section 17(3)(b)(ii) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was construed to require a proportionate penalty for the actual period of default, rather than treating any incomplete month as a full month. The provision&#039;s reference to &quot;part thereof&quot; was read as covering periods shorter than a complete month, and a contrary automatic full-month computation was held inconsistent with the statutory language. The interpretation adopted by the assessing authority and first appellate authority was preferred, while the Tribunal&#039;s view was rejected, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:46:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 486 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158289</link>
      <description>The expression &quot;month or part thereof&quot; in section 17(3)(b)(ii) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was construed to require a proportionate penalty for the actual period of default, rather than treating any incomplete month as a full month. The provision&#039;s reference to &quot;part thereof&quot; was read as covering periods shorter than a complete month, and a contrary automatic full-month computation was held inconsistent with the statutory language. The interpretation adopted by the assessing authority and first appellate authority was preferred, while the Tribunal&#039;s view was rejected, and the reference was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>