<?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>2019 (4) TMI 116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377672</link>
    <description>A revised return is not maintainable once proceedings under the assessment provision have commenced, because the statutory conditions for filing a revised return are no longer satisfied. The assessee&#039;s post-commencement return was therefore invalid in law. On penalty, the provision for suppressed turnover confers discretion and the maximum penalty is not automatic; where suppression was proved but the tax was later paid in instalments, a penalty of 100% was treated as sufficient and 200% was considered excessive. The challenge to the reduced penalty failed, and the tribunal&#039;s order sustaining 100% penalty was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:27:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 116 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377672</link>
      <description>A revised return is not maintainable once proceedings under the assessment provision have commenced, because the statutory conditions for filing a revised return are no longer satisfied. The assessee&#039;s post-commencement return was therefore invalid in law. On penalty, the provision for suppressed turnover confers discretion and the maximum penalty is not automatic; where suppression was proved but the tax was later paid in instalments, a penalty of 100% was treated as sufficient and 200% was considered excessive. The challenge to the reduced penalty failed, and the tribunal&#039;s order sustaining 100% penalty was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>