https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461349 The Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2018 were held to have legal backing, so the Corporation could impose monetary penalty under them. The 30-day period for issuing notice under Clause 4.2(viii) was treated as directory, not mandatory, so delay did not by itself invalidate the proceedings. Clause 4.2(x) required a speaking order, and the impugned penalty orders failed that test because they were stereotyped, non-reasoned, and showed no real consideration of the replies; they were therefore set aside for fresh consideration. The average-commission basis for penalty was upheld, and Clause 4.1 was found to be internally consistent and not ambiguous. en-us Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 18:26:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461349 The Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2018 were held to have legal backing, so the Corporation could impose monetary penalty under them. The 30-day period for issuing notice under Clause 4.2(viii) was treated as directory, not mandatory, so delay did not by itself invalidate the proceedings. Clause 4.2(x) required a speaking order, and the impugned penalty orders failed that test because they were stereotyped, non-reasoned, and showed no real consideration of the replies; they were therefore set aside for fresh consideration. The average-commission basis for penalty was upheld, and Clause 4.1 was found to be internally consistent and not ambiguous. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461349