<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243211</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires wilful non-disclosure or deliberate suppression of assessable turnover. The court found that the assessee&#039;s books disclosed the turnover, and the revision arose from the pricing method of including entry tax paid on purchases in the sale price while claiming set-off. That issue was treated as an accounting method dispute rather than concealment of turnover, and the record did not show mens rea or deliberate evasion. In the absence of a recorded finding of wilful suppression, the statutory precondition for penalty was not met, so penalty was not exigible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1426 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243211</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires wilful non-disclosure or deliberate suppression of assessable turnover. The court found that the assessee&#039;s books disclosed the turnover, and the revision arose from the pricing method of including entry tax paid on purchases in the sale price while claiming set-off. That issue was treated as an accounting method dispute rather than concealment of turnover, and the record did not show mens rea or deliberate evasion. In the absence of a recorded finding of wilful suppression, the statutory precondition for penalty was not met, so penalty was not exigible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>