<?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>2016 (10) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333581</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act is quasi-criminal and cannot follow reassessment automatically. It may be imposed only where the assessing authority records a specific finding that the dealer wilfully failed to disclose taxable turnover or suppressed material facts. Where the relevant payment is already reflected in the books and the reassessment order contains no finding of wilful non-disclosure, the jurisdictional basis for penalty is absent. An incorrect statutory reference may be curable, but it does not save a penalty order lacking the required finding. The penalty was therefore not sustainable, while the tax assessment itself remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 601 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333581</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act is quasi-criminal and cannot follow reassessment automatically. It may be imposed only where the assessing authority records a specific finding that the dealer wilfully failed to disclose taxable turnover or suppressed material facts. Where the relevant payment is already reflected in the books and the reassessment order contains no finding of wilful non-disclosure, the jurisdictional basis for penalty is absent. An incorrect statutory reference may be curable, but it does not save a penalty order lacking the required finding. The penalty was therefore not sustainable, while the tax assessment itself remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>