https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259465 A revised return filed within the permitted period, disclosing the correct turnover and accompanied by payment of the admitted tax and interest before any notice or inspection, displaced the original nil return for purposes of penalty under section 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The statute treats a revised return as a return, and once filed under section 35(4) with the additional tax paid under section 42(7), the earlier return does not survive independently. Because the operative revised return disclosed the full liability, there was no remaining understatement in the return to attract penalty. Penalty under section 72(2) was therefore not attracted and was wrongly imposed. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259465 A revised return filed within the permitted period, disclosing the correct turnover and accompanied by payment of the admitted tax and interest before any notice or inspection, displaced the original nil return for purposes of penalty under section 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The statute treats a revised return as a return, and once filed under section 35(4) with the additional tax paid under section 42(7), the earlier return does not survive independently. Because the operative revised return disclosed the full liability, there was no remaining understatement in the return to attract penalty. Penalty under section 72(2) was therefore not attracted and was wrongly imposed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 16 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259465