<?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>2014 (5) TMI 645 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247718</link>
    <description>Penalty for collecting and retaining tax was leviable where the assessee&#039;s turnover was below the statutory threshold, but it had still collected tax from buyers and failed to refund it after becoming aware that no tax was payable. The court distinguished cases involving collection at the department&#039;s instance or remittance to the State without the same statutory mischief, and held that those authorities did not apply on these facts. Mere remittance before assessment did not cure the earlier contravention, because the assessee showed no bona fides or prompt refund. The revision was therefore rejected and penalty sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 645 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247718</link>
      <description>Penalty for collecting and retaining tax was leviable where the assessee&#039;s turnover was below the statutory threshold, but it had still collected tax from buyers and failed to refund it after becoming aware that no tax was payable. The court distinguished cases involving collection at the department&#039;s instance or remittance to the State without the same statutory mischief, and held that those authorities did not apply on these facts. Mere remittance before assessment did not cure the earlier contravention, because the assessee showed no bona fides or prompt refund. The revision was therefore rejected and penalty sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>