<?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>1997 (8) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159393</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, to levy penalties under Section 10-A of the CST Act. It ruled that mens rea was not necessary for imposing penalties under Section 10(b) and that the rule of contemporanea expositio could not override statutory provisions. The court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, restoring the penalties imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in both tax cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:46:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159393</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment Circle, to levy penalties under Section 10-A of the CST Act. It ruled that mens rea was not necessary for imposing penalties under Section 10(b) and that the rule of contemporanea expositio could not override statutory provisions. The court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, restoring the penalties imposed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in both tax cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>