<?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>1991 (10) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161100</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was confined to assessments made on accepted books of account where the return was found to be incorrect or incomplete; in that setting, deliberate concealment was not required, though bona fides remained relevant to whether the return was truly defective. Where the accounts were rejected and the assessment was made by best judgment, the penalty provision did not apply. The matter was remitted because the assessing order contained conflicting indications on whether the assessment had proceeded on the books or independently of them, and the essential factual basis for penalty had not been recorded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:21:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (10) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161100</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was confined to assessments made on accepted books of account where the return was found to be incorrect or incomplete; in that setting, deliberate concealment was not required, though bona fides remained relevant to whether the return was truly defective. Where the accounts were rejected and the assessment was made by best judgment, the penalty provision did not apply. The matter was remitted because the assessing order contained conflicting indications on whether the assessment had proceeded on the books or independently of them, and the essential factual basis for penalty had not been recorded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>