https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160516 Omission of section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act did not extinguish penalty proceedings already initiated, because accrued liability and penalty were preserved by the saving effect of sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the General Clauses Act and by section 41 of the amending Act. A notice citing the omitted provision was not invalid where it gave sufficient particulars and the substituted section 4-B(5) covered the same field. Sale of notified rice outside Uttar Pradesh in breach of recognition-certificate conditions sustained penalty, and absence of form III-B did not defeat the substantive liability. The court also held that bona fide belief or mens rea was immaterial and that the penalty quantum objection was not entertained. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:09:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160516 Omission of section 4-B(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act did not extinguish penalty proceedings already initiated, because accrued liability and penalty were preserved by the saving effect of sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the General Clauses Act and by section 41 of the amending Act. A notice citing the omitted provision was not invalid where it gave sufficient particulars and the substituted section 4-B(5) covered the same field. Sale of notified rice outside Uttar Pradesh in breach of recognition-certificate conditions sustained penalty, and absence of form III-B did not defeat the substantive liability. The court also held that bona fide belief or mens rea was immaterial and that the penalty quantum objection was not entertained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160516