https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163962 Section 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal anti-evasion measure treating goods kept in an undeclared godown as unaccounted stock, with the proviso protecting dealers who had given prior written intimation. The constitutional challenge based on arbitrariness and unreasonableness failed because the statutory scheme included compliance safeguards and appellate remedies. Penalty under section 44(8), read with section 44(10), was held to be permissible, but not automatic: the assessing authority must decide whether penalty is exigible and determine the proper quantum on the facts of each case. The maximum rate is only an upper limit and cannot be applied mechanically. en-us Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2014 15:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163962 Section 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was upheld as a valid fiscal anti-evasion measure treating goods kept in an undeclared godown as unaccounted stock, with the proviso protecting dealers who had given prior written intimation. The constitutional challenge based on arbitrariness and unreasonableness failed because the statutory scheme included compliance safeguards and appellate remedies. Penalty under section 44(8), read with section 44(10), was held to be permissible, but not automatic: the assessing authority must decide whether penalty is exigible and determine the proper quantum on the facts of each case. The maximum rate is only an upper limit and cannot be applied mechanically. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163962