<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1051 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168024</link>
    <description>Penalty for concealment or filing a false return could not be sustained where the dealer had fully disclosed the transactions in the return and books, and the dispute arose only from a bona fide claim that the goods were exempt. A genuine legal interpretation, without concealment, falsity, deliberate defiance of law, or conscious disregard of obligation, did not satisfy the conditions for penalty. The penalty order and revisional confirmation were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1051 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168024</link>
      <description>Penalty for concealment or filing a false return could not be sustained where the dealer had fully disclosed the transactions in the return and books, and the dispute arose only from a bona fide claim that the goods were exempt. A genuine legal interpretation, without concealment, falsity, deliberate defiance of law, or conscious disregard of obligation, did not satisfy the conditions for penalty. The penalty order and revisional confirmation were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>