<?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 (8) TMI 498 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158996</link>
    <description>A dealer who filed returns on time and deposited sales tax by cheque within 30 days of the quarter-end, though beyond the 20-day period for cheque payments, was found to have substantially complied with the Punjab General Sales Tax framework. Section 10(4) and rule 20 were read as requiring timely payment, but the short delay had to be assessed with surrounding circumstances rather than by a mechanical resort to sections 10(6) and 11D. Because the authority did not examine the explanation for delay or the dealer&#039;s conduct, the imposition of interest and penalty was held unjustified and the orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:17:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 498 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158996</link>
      <description>A dealer who filed returns on time and deposited sales tax by cheque within 30 days of the quarter-end, though beyond the 20-day period for cheque payments, was found to have substantially complied with the Punjab General Sales Tax framework. Section 10(4) and rule 20 were read as requiring timely payment, but the short delay had to be assessed with surrounding circumstances rather than by a mechanical resort to sections 10(6) and 11D. Because the authority did not examine the explanation for delay or the dealer&#039;s conduct, the imposition of interest and penalty was held unjustified and the orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>