<?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 (5) TMI 397 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158834</link>
    <description>A factual finding that the assessee lacked sufficient funds on the date the cheque was dishonoured meant the penalty dispute did not raise a referable question of law. The later transfer of funds could not cure the default already committed, and concurrent findings rejecting the bank certificate and holding non-payment on presentation were based on appreciation of evidence. A fresh plea that interest was not chargeable, not raised before the Tribunal, could not be converted into a legal question at the reference stage. The result is that no referable question of law arose from the penalty order, and the interest contention was not entertainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:22:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 397 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158834</link>
      <description>A factual finding that the assessee lacked sufficient funds on the date the cheque was dishonoured meant the penalty dispute did not raise a referable question of law. The later transfer of funds could not cure the default already committed, and concurrent findings rejecting the bank certificate and holding non-payment on presentation were based on appreciation of evidence. A fresh plea that interest was not chargeable, not raised before the Tribunal, could not be converted into a legal question at the reference stage. The result is that no referable question of law arose from the penalty order, and the interest contention was not entertainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>