https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172094 Penalty under section 21(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not automatic and required deliberate defiance of law, contumacious conduct, dishonest intent, or conscious disregard of the statutory obligation. Where the assessee had filed returns, assessment had already been completed, and tax had been accepted at a particular rate, a later audit objection suggesting a different tax rate on the product sold did not by itself justify penal action. On those facts, the omission was not treated as deliberate or dishonest, and the penalty was held unsustainable; the impugned orders were quashed to that extent in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Dec 2015 16:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172094 Penalty under section 21(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not automatic and required deliberate defiance of law, contumacious conduct, dishonest intent, or conscious disregard of the statutory obligation. Where the assessee had filed returns, assessment had already been completed, and tax had been accepted at a particular rate, a later audit objection suggesting a different tax rate on the product sold did not by itself justify penal action. On those facts, the omission was not treated as deliberate or dishonest, and the penalty was held unsustainable; the impugned orders were quashed to that extent in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172094