<?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 (2) TMI 487 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243890</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 15-A(1)(e) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unsustainable where the assessee filed the statutory appeal and stay application within time and the stay request remained undecided because of delay at the authority&#039;s end. The court reasoned that penalty can arise only on failure to pay tax without reasonable cause, and timely pursuit of appellate and stay remedies shows reasonable cause for non-payment during that period. Treating such non-payment as penal would undermine the effectiveness of the statutory appeal process. The earlier view that diligent use of the remedy negatives penalty liability in these circumstances was followed, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 09:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=345710" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 487 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243890</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 15-A(1)(e) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unsustainable where the assessee filed the statutory appeal and stay application within time and the stay request remained undecided because of delay at the authority&#039;s end. The court reasoned that penalty can arise only on failure to pay tax without reasonable cause, and timely pursuit of appellate and stay remedies shows reasonable cause for non-payment during that period. Treating such non-payment as penal would undermine the effectiveness of the statutory appeal process. The earlier view that diligent use of the remedy negatives penalty liability in these circumstances was followed, and the penalty order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>