<?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 (1) TMI 843 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163289</link>
    <description>Penalty for concealment was upheld where inter-State purchases were omitted from quarterly returns, no satisfactory explanation was offered despite repeated s, and the assessee eventually admitted the omission; a plea of bona fide mistake and absence of mens rea did not defeat liability. The statutory hearing requirement was also met because notice was served, adjournments were granted, the assessee appeared with counsel, and an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy was given before penalty was imposed. On these facts, no violation of natural justice was found and no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2014 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 843 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163289</link>
      <description>Penalty for concealment was upheld where inter-State purchases were omitted from quarterly returns, no satisfactory explanation was offered despite repeated s, and the assessee eventually admitted the omission; a plea of bona fide mistake and absence of mens rea did not defeat liability. The statutory hearing requirement was also met because notice was served, adjournments were granted, the assessee appeared with counsel, and an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy was given before penalty was imposed. On these facts, no violation of natural justice was found and no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>