https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436097 An incorrect nil return, followed by disclosure only after initiation of penalty proceedings, supported penalty for concealment and furnishing incorrect particulars under the Jharkhand VAT framework. A revised return filed after notice under Rule 14(7) could not be relied on as a defence, and the regular assessment order accepting that revision did not extinguish the pending penalty action because penalty proceedings under Section 40(2) operate independently of final assessment. The court also treated the conduct as lacking bona fides and sufficient to establish the mental element required for penalty. The writ challenge therefore failed and the penalty orders were upheld. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2023 08:57:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436097 An incorrect nil return, followed by disclosure only after initiation of penalty proceedings, supported penalty for concealment and furnishing incorrect particulars under the Jharkhand VAT framework. A revised return filed after notice under Rule 14(7) could not be relied on as a defence, and the regular assessment order accepting that revision did not extinguish the pending penalty action because penalty proceedings under Section 40(2) operate independently of final assessment. The court also treated the conduct as lacking bona fides and sufficient to establish the mental element required for penalty. The writ challenge therefore failed and the penalty orders were upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436097