https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304790 Where contemporaneous returns, inspection findings and an unretracted admission showed sales suppression and escaped turnover, the Madras HC upheld penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for wilful non-disclosure. The Court treated the absence of stock, the mismatch between purchases and sales, and the Accounts Officer's statement as sufficient proof that tax had escaped assessment. It also held that the statutory penalty rate under Section 27(3) did not confer discretion on the Court to reduce the prescribed penalty. en-us Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Oct 2022 07:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304790 Where contemporaneous returns, inspection findings and an unretracted admission showed sales suppression and escaped turnover, the Madras HC upheld penalty under Section 27(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for wilful non-disclosure. The Court treated the absence of stock, the mismatch between purchases and sales, and the Accounts Officer's statement as sufficient proof that tax had escaped assessment. It also held that the statutory penalty rate under Section 27(3) did not confer discretion on the Court to reduce the prescribed penalty. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304790