<?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 (9) TMI 894 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169035</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 61 of the Rajasthan VAT Act was held not exigible where the assessee had disclosed the sales in its books and returns, and the dispute arose only from a bona fide difference over interpretation and classification of goods. The records showed no concealment or misinformation, so additional tax and interest did not by themselves justify automatic penalty. The principle applied was that penalty cannot follow merely because the department&#039;s view on classification is ultimately accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:07:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 894 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169035</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 61 of the Rajasthan VAT Act was held not exigible where the assessee had disclosed the sales in its books and returns, and the dispute arose only from a bona fide difference over interpretation and classification of goods. The records showed no concealment or misinformation, so additional tax and interest did not by themselves justify automatic penalty. The principle applied was that penalty cannot follow merely because the department&#039;s view on classification is ultimately accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>