<?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 507 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158779</link>
    <description>Penalty provisions for late filing of returns and for non-filing of returns operate in distinct fields and are mutually exclusive. Where the reference proceeded on the assumption that the assessee had filed all quarterly returns, the provision applicable to non-filing could not be invoked alongside the provision for delayed filing. The court stressed that penalty depends on identifying the exact lapse and the correct statutory provision, and that penal liability requires clarity of the factual basis. A composite penalty under both provisions was therefore not sustainable, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:37:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 507 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158779</link>
      <description>Penalty provisions for late filing of returns and for non-filing of returns operate in distinct fields and are mutually exclusive. Where the reference proceeded on the assumption that the assessee had filed all quarterly returns, the provision applicable to non-filing could not be invoked alongside the provision for delayed filing. The court stressed that penalty depends on identifying the exact lapse and the correct statutory provision, and that penal liability requires clarity of the factual basis. A composite penalty under both provisions was therefore not sustainable, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>