Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 37 in The Bombay University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Sasman And Company on 2 November, 1983
10. Again, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sasman and Company [1984] 57 STC 160 (Mad.), it was found that where there was a mutual mistake on the part of the assessing authority and the assessee as to the rate of tax payable, the assessee could not be said to have intentionally violated the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act and the penalty provisions under section 22(2) of the Act were not attracted.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Jaya Pharmacy on 30 November, 1983
11. Similar view was also taken in State of Tamil Nadu v. Jaya Pharmacy [1984] 57 STC 164 (Mad.). It was found that where both the assessees as well as the assessing authority had acted under a mutual mistake and collection at the higher rate of tax by the assessee was as a result of the mutual mistake, it could not be said that section 22(2) of the Act would be attracted.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Selvakumar Timber Traders on 29 October, 1981
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Selvakumar Timber Traders [1984] 57 STC 69 (Mad.), the assessing authority had levied a penalty for violation of section 22(1) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal, had reduced the quantum of the penalty. The Tribunal considered the second appeal of the assessees as well as the department's enhancement petition asking for the restoration of the penalty as originally levied by the assessing authority and held that there was no case for restoration of penalty, as levied by the assessing authority and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty. The enhancement petition of the State was accordingly dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the revision petition filed by the Revenue.
1