https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405516 Penalty under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was not automatic, because the assessing authority had to issue notice and exercise discretion before imposing it. On the facts, the classification dispute over aluminium castings, the ambiguity in the levy position, and the revenue-neutral character of the transaction supported the assessee's bona fide conduct, so non-imposition of penalty was upheld. Revisional power under Section 64(1) could be exercised only if the appellate order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue; since the first appellate authority had examined the material and found no such error or prejudice, the revision was unsustainable and the assessee's relief was restored. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Mar 2022 15:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405516 Penalty under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was not automatic, because the assessing authority had to issue notice and exercise discretion before imposing it. On the facts, the classification dispute over aluminium castings, the ambiguity in the levy position, and the revenue-neutral character of the transaction supported the assessee's bona fide conduct, so non-imposition of penalty was upheld. Revisional power under Section 64(1) could be exercised only if the appellate order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue; since the first appellate authority had examined the material and found no such error or prejudice, the revision was unsustainable and the assessee's relief was restored. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405516