https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440022 Penalty under Section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was upheld because the dealer had originally shown inter-State sales as branch transfers and revised the returns only after detection at the sales tax barrier and verification of stock transfers. The record supported deliberate suppression of taxable turnover, not a bona fide mistake, and mens rea was inferred from the surrounding material and conduct. The statutory penalty provision was therefore attracted, the challenge to its levy failed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440022 Penalty under Section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was upheld because the dealer had originally shown inter-State sales as branch transfers and revised the returns only after detection at the sales tax barrier and verification of stock transfers. The record supported deliberate suppression of taxable turnover, not a bona fide mistake, and mens rea was inferred from the surrounding material and conduct. The statutory penalty provision was therefore attracted, the challenge to its levy failed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440022