<?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 (12) TMI 1358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372589</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was confined to amounts illegally collected as tax or purporting to be tax and retained by the dealer. Where sales tax was charged at the prescribed rate, entry tax recoupment was separately shown in invoices, and the full amount was remitted to the treasury, there was no excess tax collection or retention. On those facts, the penalty levy was unsustainable and could not be maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2018 00:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372589</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was confined to amounts illegally collected as tax or purporting to be tax and retained by the dealer. Where sales tax was charged at the prescribed rate, entry tax recoupment was separately shown in invoices, and the full amount was remitted to the treasury, there was no excess tax collection or retention. On those facts, the penalty levy was unsustainable and could not be maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>