<?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>2015 (4) TMI 425 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258543</link>
    <description>Revisional interference with a discretionary decision not to impose penalty is confined to cases where the subordinate order is erroneous and prejudicial to State revenue; a mere change of opinion is insufficient. Penalty proceedings with civil consequences require notice, hearing and observance of audi alteram partem, and action under a provision not referred to in the revision application can prejudice the assessee. The note also states that penalty under the relevant taxing provisions is not automatic and depends on deliberate or contumacious conduct, while limitation for revision runs from the date of the order sought to be revised within the prescribed five-year period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2015 12:52:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 425 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258543</link>
      <description>Revisional interference with a discretionary decision not to impose penalty is confined to cases where the subordinate order is erroneous and prejudicial to State revenue; a mere change of opinion is insufficient. Penalty proceedings with civil consequences require notice, hearing and observance of audi alteram partem, and action under a provision not referred to in the revision application can prejudice the assessee. The note also states that penalty under the relevant taxing provisions is not automatic and depends on deliberate or contumacious conduct, while limitation for revision runs from the date of the order sought to be revised within the prescribed five-year period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>