<?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>1997 (8) TMI 509 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162368</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to impose a reduced penalty on the assessee for unauthorized use of &quot;C&quot; forms. The penalty was deemed appropriate to recoup lost tax revenue and penalize wrongful conduct, emphasizing the importance of adhering to registration certificate terms. The court clarified that a bona fide belief must be supported by evidence and that mens rea is not necessary for penalties under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:37:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 509 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162368</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to impose a reduced penalty on the assessee for unauthorized use of &quot;C&quot; forms. The penalty was deemed appropriate to recoup lost tax revenue and penalize wrongful conduct, emphasizing the importance of adhering to registration certificate terms. The court clarified that a bona fide belief must be supported by evidence and that mens rea is not necessary for penalties under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>