<?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>2022 (11) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430071</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was examined in the context of an assessment period already governed by that Act. The turnover dispute had earlier been decided against the assessee on merits, while the penalty issue was considered against the background of authorities on penalty for incorrect or incomplete returns and the restricted levy sustained by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the earlier view on penalty may warrant reconsideration, but declined to depart from existing precedent and left the broader question open for an appropriate case. The writ petition was allowed, and the penalty determination was not interfered with in the manner sought by the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430071</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was examined in the context of an assessment period already governed by that Act. The turnover dispute had earlier been decided against the assessee on merits, while the penalty issue was considered against the background of authorities on penalty for incorrect or incomplete returns and the restricted levy sustained by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the earlier view on penalty may warrant reconsideration, but declined to depart from existing precedent and left the broader question open for an appropriate case. The writ petition was allowed, and the penalty determination was not interfered with in the manner sought by the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>