<?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 (7) TMI 512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158713</link>
    <description>Where a penalty for non-wilful failure is capped by statute at not exceeding one-half of the tax or fee due, the authority must give reasons before selecting the maximum within that ceiling. The text states that once the failure was found not wilful, the statutory limit applied, but no circumstances were shown to justify the highest permissible penalty. The penalty was therefore considered excessive and was reduced to one-fourth of the tax due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 18:22:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158713</link>
      <description>Where a penalty for non-wilful failure is capped by statute at not exceeding one-half of the tax or fee due, the authority must give reasons before selecting the maximum within that ceiling. The text states that once the failure was found not wilful, the statutory limit applied, but no circumstances were shown to justify the highest permissible penalty. The penalty was therefore considered excessive and was reduced to one-fourth of the tax due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>