<?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>2008 (2) TMI 840 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163222</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where the show cause notice failed to clearly and specifically allege the exact contravention under clause (d) of section 10. A notice initiating penalty proceedings must set out the charge in clear, unambiguous terms so the dealer can answer it effectively; a vague reference that was at best referable to clause (b) did not satisfy that requirement. The deficiency amounted to breach of the statutory notice requirement and natural justice, and the subsequent penalty order and revisional affirmation could not cure the foundational defect. The penalty proceedings were therefore held invalid and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 840 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163222</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where the show cause notice failed to clearly and specifically allege the exact contravention under clause (d) of section 10. A notice initiating penalty proceedings must set out the charge in clear, unambiguous terms so the dealer can answer it effectively; a vague reference that was at best referable to clause (b) did not satisfy that requirement. The deficiency amounted to breach of the statutory notice requirement and natural justice, and the subsequent penalty order and revisional affirmation could not cure the foundational defect. The penalty proceedings were therefore held invalid and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>