<?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>2002 (12) TMI 573 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161327</link>
    <description>The Madras HC discussed entry tax adjustment where sales tax, surcharge and additional sales tax had already been paid on the same vehicle transactions. It treated the entry tax levy as compensatory and held that the amount already collected under the sales tax assessment could be set off against the entry tax liability, avoiding double payment on the same transaction. The Court also noted that penalty for non-payment was unsustainable because the default arose from a bona fide mistake, not wilful or contumacious conduct. In addition, penalty proceedings were vitiated because the statute required a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which was not properly given.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:34:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 573 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161327</link>
      <description>The Madras HC discussed entry tax adjustment where sales tax, surcharge and additional sales tax had already been paid on the same vehicle transactions. It treated the entry tax levy as compensatory and held that the amount already collected under the sales tax assessment could be set off against the entry tax liability, avoiding double payment on the same transaction. The Court also noted that penalty for non-payment was unsustainable because the default arose from a bona fide mistake, not wilful or contumacious conduct. In addition, penalty proceedings were vitiated because the statute required a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which was not properly given.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>