<?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>2003 (11) TMI 645 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307806</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 45A(1)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is attracted for filing an untrue or incorrect return and does not require a best judgment assessment under Section 19(2). Deliberate suppression of turnover and a revised return filed only after omission was pointed out established mens rea, so the penalty was justified. The revisional authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty was treated as sufficient, and the contrary earlier view was overruled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 May 2023 09:41:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=713120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 645 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307806</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 45A(1)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is attracted for filing an untrue or incorrect return and does not require a best judgment assessment under Section 19(2). Deliberate suppression of turnover and a revised return filed only after omission was pointed out established mens rea, so the penalty was justified. The revisional authority&#039;s reduction of the penalty was treated as sufficient, and the contrary earlier view was overruled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>