https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161388 Penalty for alleged defects in Form 39-C was held unwarranted because rule 23-B(1-B)(b) was construed pragmatically and not as requiring the dealer personally to print the form. The use of a private printer and a slight variation in paper colour were treated as technical deviations, not deliberate non-compliance. Section 28-A(4) was described as a deterrent provision meant for blatant or wilful breaches, and the explanation offered by the dealer was found sufficient. On those facts, the notice and confirmation order were set aside and penalty was not exigible. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161388 Penalty for alleged defects in Form 39-C was held unwarranted because rule 23-B(1-B)(b) was construed pragmatically and not as requiring the dealer personally to print the form. The use of a private printer and a slight variation in paper colour were treated as technical deviations, not deliberate non-compliance. Section 28-A(4) was described as a deterrent provision meant for blatant or wilful breaches, and the explanation offered by the dealer was found sufficient. On those facts, the notice and confirmation order were set aside and penalty was not exigible. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161388