<?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>2020 (8) TMI 782 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397839</link>
    <description>Penalty for delayed payment of admitted VAT was held unjustified where the tax was ultimately paid with interest and no financial loss to the revenue was shown. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s view that, on these facts, levy of penalty under the VAT Act for belated deposit was not warranted, and the penalty could not be sustained against the assessee. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, and the revisions failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 13:49:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 782 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397839</link>
      <description>Penalty for delayed payment of admitted VAT was held unjustified where the tax was ultimately paid with interest and no financial loss to the revenue was shown. The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s view that, on these facts, levy of penalty under the VAT Act for belated deposit was not warranted, and the penalty could not be sustained against the assessee. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, and the revisions failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>