https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57897 Penalty under section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act required jurisdictional satisfaction to exist during assessment; where no reservation or indication to impose penalty was recorded, post-assessment initiation by a successor authority was not permissible. The Explanation was treated as a rebuttable presumption, not a conclusive legal fiction, and it remained controlled by the main provision rather than enlarging it independently. For levy of penalty, a separate finding of concealment under clause (c) was not required, but the authority had to determine under the Explanation whether the dealer failed to show that the shortfall was not due to gross or wilful neglect. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57897 Penalty under section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act required jurisdictional satisfaction to exist during assessment; where no reservation or indication to impose penalty was recorded, post-assessment initiation by a successor authority was not permissible. The Explanation was treated as a rebuttable presumption, not a conclusive legal fiction, and it remained controlled by the main provision rather than enlarging it independently. For levy of penalty, a separate finding of concealment under clause (c) was not required, but the authority had to determine under the Explanation whether the dealer failed to show that the shortfall was not due to gross or wilful neglect. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 17 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57897