<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1011 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358900</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held inapplicable where the disputed turnover was fully reflected in the assessee&#039;s books and no suppression outside the accounts was established. The reassessment arose only because the exemption claim as second sales was rejected, not because concealed turnover was brought to tax on best judgment. Applying the settled principle that this penalty provision is attracted only in cases of best judgment assessment and not merely from rejection of an exemption claim or a difference between assessed and returned tax, the Court held that penalty was not leviable on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:00:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1011 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358900</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held inapplicable where the disputed turnover was fully reflected in the assessee&#039;s books and no suppression outside the accounts was established. The reassessment arose only because the exemption claim as second sales was rejected, not because concealed turnover was brought to tax on best judgment. Applying the settled principle that this penalty provision is attracted only in cases of best judgment assessment and not merely from rejection of an exemption claim or a difference between assessed and returned tax, the Court held that penalty was not leviable on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>