<?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>1998 (6) TMI 541 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159063</link>
    <description>Penalty for collecting tax on a turnover not exigible to tax was unsustainable once the amount was refunded to the purchaser, because the proviso to section 46A(1) protected against penalty based solely on unlawful collection. The monthly return was not untrue or incorrect in relation to the non-taxable turnover. However, separate penalty was justified for wilful failure to produce sale bills and connected records in response to repeated notices, as that non-compliance attracted section 45A. As there was no tax evasion on the colour cover turnover, the penalty could not be linked to evaded tax and had to be confined to the notice default, resulting in reduction of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:03:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 541 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159063</link>
      <description>Penalty for collecting tax on a turnover not exigible to tax was unsustainable once the amount was refunded to the purchaser, because the proviso to section 46A(1) protected against penalty based solely on unlawful collection. The monthly return was not untrue or incorrect in relation to the non-taxable turnover. However, separate penalty was justified for wilful failure to produce sale bills and connected records in response to repeated notices, as that non-compliance attracted section 45A. As there was no tax evasion on the colour cover turnover, the penalty could not be linked to evaded tax and had to be confined to the notice default, resulting in reduction of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>