<?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>2003 (11) TMI 569 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161945</link>
    <description>Under the Central Sales Tax Act, penalty is attracted where a registered dealer issues form C for goods not covered by its registration certificate, because that amounts to a false declaration that the goods are covered by registration. On the facts, oil-seeds were not included in the dealer&#039;s registration and there was no reliable basis for a bona fide belief to the contrary, so deletion of penalty was unsustainable. At the same time, the penalty was confined to the concessional tax benefit wrongly obtained through misuse of form C, and the reassessment was reduced to the extent of the 4 per cent differential benefit on the relevant turnover.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:19:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 569 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161945</link>
      <description>Under the Central Sales Tax Act, penalty is attracted where a registered dealer issues form C for goods not covered by its registration certificate, because that amounts to a false declaration that the goods are covered by registration. On the facts, oil-seeds were not included in the dealer&#039;s registration and there was no reliable basis for a bona fide belief to the contrary, so deletion of penalty was unsustainable. At the same time, the penalty was confined to the concessional tax benefit wrongly obtained through misuse of form C, and the reassessment was reduced to the extent of the 4 per cent differential benefit on the relevant turnover.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>