https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783765 A prior show-cause notice in Form VAT-XXIX was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty under Section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005; a separate fresh notice was not necessary once the dealer had been informed of the proposed penalty and its basis. In revision under Section 48, interference was not warranted because three levels of authority had recorded concurrent factual findings that the dealer claimed an excessive deduction and suppressed taxable value, and no substantial question of law arose. The concurrent levy of tax demand and penalty was therefore sustained. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783765 A prior show-cause notice in Form VAT-XXIX was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty under Section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005; a separate fresh notice was not necessary once the dealer had been informed of the proposed penalty and its basis. In revision under Section 48, interference was not warranted because three levels of authority had recorded concurrent factual findings that the dealer claimed an excessive deduction and suppressed taxable value, and no substantial question of law arose. The concurrent levy of tax demand and penalty was therefore sustained. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783765