https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446923 HC allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s. 86 of the Delhi VAT Act. It held that its earlier order dated 26.09.2016 had not confined the remand to the issue of proportionality of the 200% penalty but permitted a challenge to the very foundation of the penalty. The HC ruled that ss. 86(10), (14) and (15) are not statutory, automatic penalty provisions akin to those considered by SC in Saw Pipes, and the Tribunal erred in treating them as such. On facts, no false, misleading or deceptive statement was found; the assessee's belief on non-taxability was bona fide. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446923 HC allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the penalty imposed under s. 86 of the Delhi VAT Act. It held that its earlier order dated 26.09.2016 had not confined the remand to the issue of proportionality of the 200% penalty but permitted a challenge to the very foundation of the penalty. The HC ruled that ss. 86(10), (14) and (15) are not statutory, automatic penalty provisions akin to those considered by SC in Saw Pipes, and the Tribunal erred in treating them as such. On facts, no false, misleading or deceptive statement was found; the assessee's belief on non-taxability was bona fide. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 13 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446923