https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158937 Appellate enhancement power was construed to include restoration of a penalty cancelled in full, because the post-1986 amendment expressly covered full or partial restoration and was treated as clarificatory. That made the enhancement petition maintainable. On the merits, however, penalty under section 16(2) was not exigible where the turnover was supported by accepted books of account and the accounts were not rejected, so the penalty could not be sustained. The legal position therefore recognises a wide appellate power to restore penalty, but no liability arises under the penalty provision on facts showing duly accepted book turnover. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:52:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158937 Appellate enhancement power was construed to include restoration of a penalty cancelled in full, because the post-1986 amendment expressly covered full or partial restoration and was treated as clarificatory. That made the enhancement petition maintainable. On the merits, however, penalty under section 16(2) was not exigible where the turnover was supported by accepted books of account and the accounts were not rejected, so the penalty could not be sustained. The legal position therefore recognises a wide appellate power to restore penalty, but no liability arises under the penalty provision on facts showing duly accepted book turnover. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 25 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158937