<?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 (9) TMI 585 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159135</link>
    <description>A registered dealer must obtain amendment of the registration certificate through the prescribed procedure before using declaration forms for goods not covered by the certificate. The authority&#039;s power to amend the certificate on information received otherwise is discretionary, not a mandatory duty, and does not create a deemed amendment or justify unauthorised use of declaration forms. Penalty for such use was held sustainable because the dealer acted in conscious disregard of the statutory restriction, and alleged absence of mens rea, procedural defects in notice, or a mistaken reference to the later Act did not invalidate the proceedings where the underlying penal provision remained applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:00:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335875" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 585 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159135</link>
      <description>A registered dealer must obtain amendment of the registration certificate through the prescribed procedure before using declaration forms for goods not covered by the certificate. The authority&#039;s power to amend the certificate on information received otherwise is discretionary, not a mandatory duty, and does not create a deemed amendment or justify unauthorised use of declaration forms. Penalty for such use was held sustainable because the dealer acted in conscious disregard of the statutory restriction, and alleged absence of mens rea, procedural defects in notice, or a mistaken reference to the later Act did not invalidate the proceedings where the underlying penal provision remained applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>