<?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>2017 (12) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351934</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 was not sustainable where the entry tax had already been paid and the assessment records did not show any amount retained by the dealer. The penalty provision required a clear contravention of the Act or a proved default in payment of tax. Here, the assessment reflected payment of entry tax and retention only of the excess amount beyond the admissible set-off under Section 4, while the assumption that the dealer had collected and kept entry tax from customers was unsupported by the records. In the absence of any outstanding tax liability or material breach, the foundation for penalty was absent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 07:52:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351934</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990 was not sustainable where the entry tax had already been paid and the assessment records did not show any amount retained by the dealer. The penalty provision required a clear contravention of the Act or a proved default in payment of tax. Here, the assessment reflected payment of entry tax and retention only of the excess amount beyond the admissible set-off under Section 4, while the assumption that the dealer had collected and kept entry tax from customers was unsupported by the records. In the absence of any outstanding tax liability or material breach, the foundation for penalty was absent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>