<?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 400 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the revision, quashing the penalty imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Sales Tax Act for failure to submit form No. 31. The court held that penalties for unintentional technical violations without intent to evade tax were not justifiable. Emphasizing that penalties should be reserved for deliberate defiance, the court directed the refund of the penalty amount and emphasized the importance of intent in imposing penalties under the Sales Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 400 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the revision, quashing the penalty imposed under section 15-A(1)(o) of the Sales Tax Act for failure to submit form No. 31. The court held that penalties for unintentional technical violations without intent to evade tax were not justifiable. Emphasizing that penalties should be reserved for deliberate defiance, the court directed the refund of the penalty amount and emphasized the importance of intent in imposing penalties under the Sales Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>