<?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>2006 (6) TMI 491 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162987</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 11E(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was attracted only on default in payment of tax without reasonable cause. Rule 54E likewise required the assessing authority to consider the dealer&#039;s cause shown before treating non-payment as penal default. Where West Bengal revenue authorities had not treated REP licences as taxable goods before the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Vikas Sales Corporation, and the legal position remained unsettled in the State, the dealer had reasonable cause for not paying tax on those sales during the relevant period. A contrary view taken by another High Court did not by itself require revision of returns or payment. Penalty was therefore not leviable for the period before the Supreme Court decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:31:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 491 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162987</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 11E(4) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was attracted only on default in payment of tax without reasonable cause. Rule 54E likewise required the assessing authority to consider the dealer&#039;s cause shown before treating non-payment as penal default. Where West Bengal revenue authorities had not treated REP licences as taxable goods before the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Vikas Sales Corporation, and the legal position remained unsettled in the State, the dealer had reasonable cause for not paying tax on those sales during the relevant period. A contrary view taken by another High Court did not by itself require revision of returns or payment. Penalty was therefore not leviable for the period before the Supreme Court decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>