https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199799 Section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was construed as a compensatory interest provision, not a penalty, because its substance was to compensate the State for delayed tax payment and deter default. The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) failed since uniform treatment of defaulting assessees and graduated interest for delay were treated as legitimate fiscal recovery measures. Section 13(2A) was upheld as a beneficial remission provision and not an instance of excessive delegation, as it operated within prescribed conditions and legislative control. Applying severability, the charging provision was held independent and capable of surviving even if the remission provision were invalid. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:14:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199799 Section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was construed as a compensatory interest provision, not a penalty, because its substance was to compensate the State for delayed tax payment and deter default. The challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) failed since uniform treatment of defaulting assessees and graduated interest for delay were treated as legitimate fiscal recovery measures. Section 13(2A) was upheld as a beneficial remission provision and not an instance of excessive delegation, as it operated within prescribed conditions and legislative control. Applying severability, the charging provision was held independent and capable of surviving even if the remission provision were invalid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 20 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199799