https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374623 Penalty for unauthorised tax collection was sustained where the dealer failed to produce the records called for, did not effectively answer the show-cause notice, and did not discharge the burden of proving that the amounts collected were not excess tax. The assessing authority was entitled to draw an adverse inference and compute the excess collection on the basis of available sale and purchase materials. A remand plea was not entertained in revision because the revisional jurisdiction under Section 38 was limited to questions of law wrongly decided or omitted. The Tribunal's view that the earlier appellate order was perverse was upheld, and the penalty determinations remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Feb 2019 07:20:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374623 Penalty for unauthorised tax collection was sustained where the dealer failed to produce the records called for, did not effectively answer the show-cause notice, and did not discharge the burden of proving that the amounts collected were not excess tax. The assessing authority was entitled to draw an adverse inference and compute the excess collection on the basis of available sale and purchase materials. A remand plea was not entertained in revision because the revisional jurisdiction under Section 38 was limited to questions of law wrongly decided or omitted. The Tribunal's view that the earlier appellate order was perverse was upheld, and the penalty determinations remained undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374623