https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398361 Assessment was held within the five-year limitation under Section 33 because the order dated 29.09.2016 covered tax periods still within time. The 15% penalty for alleged concealment of taxable turnover was unsustainable, as no separate show-cause notice was issued and deliberate tax evasion was not established; it was quashed. The 0.1% turnover penalty for failure to submit audited accounts was upheld because the default was admitted and a reasonable opportunity of hearing had been given. The plea that liability could not be fastened due to absence of the prescribed form was rejected for want of proof, leaving the statutory duty to furnish audited accounts intact. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2020 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398361 Assessment was held within the five-year limitation under Section 33 because the order dated 29.09.2016 covered tax periods still within time. The 15% penalty for alleged concealment of taxable turnover was unsustainable, as no separate show-cause notice was issued and deliberate tax evasion was not established; it was quashed. The 0.1% turnover penalty for failure to submit audited accounts was upheld because the default was admitted and a reasonable opportunity of hearing had been given. The plea that liability could not be fastened due to absence of the prescribed form was rejected for want of proof, leaving the statutory duty to furnish audited accounts intact. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 09 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398361