<?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 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158776</link>
    <description>Penalty for collection of tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was not justified where a registered dealer collected tax at the applicable rate because the purchaser had not produced form XII-J at the time of sale. The collection was made in accordance with the statutory scheme and was not illegal or unauthorised merely because the amount was later refunded after the form was furnished. The HC held that penal action under section 45-B(2) applies only to collection contrary to law, and the record disclosed no deliberate violation or dishonest intent. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 514 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158776</link>
      <description>Penalty for collection of tax under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was not justified where a registered dealer collected tax at the applicable rate because the purchaser had not produced form XII-J at the time of sale. The collection was made in accordance with the statutory scheme and was not illegal or unauthorised merely because the amount was later refunded after the form was furnished. The HC held that penal action under section 45-B(2) applies only to collection contrary to law, and the record disclosed no deliberate violation or dishonest intent. The question was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158776</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>