https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408696 A writ petition challenging the jurisdiction to impose maximum penalty was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, because the dispute concerned the legality of enhanced penalty on admitted facts. A penalty under section 53(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained where the show-cause notice did not allege fraud or wilful neglect in under-reporting turnover. The absence of that factual foundation deprived the assessee of proper notice and breached natural justice, and the later reliance on an inadequate explanation could not cure the defect. The impugned penalty was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh by issuing a proper notice. en-us Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2021 08:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408696 A writ petition challenging the jurisdiction to impose maximum penalty was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy, because the dispute concerned the legality of enhanced penalty on admitted facts. A penalty under section 53(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained where the show-cause notice did not allege fraud or wilful neglect in under-reporting turnover. The absence of that factual foundation deprived the assessee of proper notice and breached natural justice, and the later reliance on an inadequate explanation could not cure the defect. The impugned penalty was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh by issuing a proper notice. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408696