<?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 (12) TMI 625 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160271</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is not automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The authority must exercise its quasi-judicial discretion judiciously, and a mechanical levy is unwarranted where taxability was doubtful at the relevant time and the assessee did not retain the collections but remitted them to the State. On those facts, penalty was held unjustified and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:33:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 625 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160271</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is not automatic and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The authority must exercise its quasi-judicial discretion judiciously, and a mechanical levy is unwarranted where taxability was doubtful at the relevant time and the assessee did not retain the collections but remitted them to the State. On those facts, penalty was held unjustified and the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160271</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>