https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448041 Manual filing of Form VAT-240 within time was valid because the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 did not require that form to be filed electronically. Sections 31, 33 and 34 were read as dealing with accounts, records and calling for records, not prescribing an electronic mode of filing. Circulars issued under Section 59 could issue administrative directions, but could not add a filing condition or sustain penalty where the statute imposed none. The penalty based solely on non-electronic filing was therefore unsustainable, and the HC quashed the penalty orders. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448041 Manual filing of Form VAT-240 within time was valid because the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 did not require that form to be filed electronically. Sections 31, 33 and 34 were read as dealing with accounts, records and calling for records, not prescribing an electronic mode of filing. Circulars issued under Section 59 could issue administrative directions, but could not add a filing condition or sustain penalty where the statute imposed none. The penalty based solely on non-electronic filing was therefore unsustainable, and the HC quashed the penalty orders. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448041