https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163451 A penalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where the notice was vague and did not clearly state the basis for proposed action. The High Court noted that penalty proceedings require notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned finding on whether the statutory ingredients for penalty are satisfied. Because the assessing authority gave only a laconic order with no cogent reasons and failed to address the specific elements attracting penalty, the penal provision could not be applied on a general allegation of tax evasion. The penalty order and the revisional affirmation were quashed. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:24:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163451 A penalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was held unsustainable where the notice was vague and did not clearly state the basis for proposed action. The High Court noted that penalty proceedings require notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned finding on whether the statutory ingredients for penalty are satisfied. Because the assessing authority gave only a laconic order with no cogent reasons and failed to address the specific elements attracting penalty, the penal provision could not be applied on a general allegation of tax evasion. The penalty order and the revisional affirmation were quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163451