<?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>2004 (7) TMI 618 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162181</link>
    <description>The court quashed the revisional authority&#039;s decision to confirm a penalty imposed on a registered dealer under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of mens rea and proper judicial consideration in such cases. It found that the appellate authority had not adequately assessed the matter and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the revisional authority to reevaluate the penalty within four months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:39:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 618 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162181</link>
      <description>The court quashed the revisional authority&#039;s decision to confirm a penalty imposed on a registered dealer under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court emphasized the importance of mens rea and proper judicial consideration in such cases. It found that the appellate authority had not adequately assessed the matter and remanded the case for fresh consideration, directing the revisional authority to reevaluate the penalty within four months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>