Find a Lawyer

ZAMAN CEMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE

31A Section RO No. 484 (1) / 92, Dated 14 5 1992 Section RO No. 978 (1) / 95th Dated 4 10 1995 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) with the exception of the legitimate expectation of exception. The machinery for the importation of the contract was executed when section RO No. 484 (1) / 92, dated 14 5 199.2, was enforced, followed by section RO No. 979 (1) / 95 dated 4 10 1995. Was withdrawn under the petitioner, claiming that despite its subsequent notification, it was entitled to release the imported machinery under Section R4 484 (1) of 1992, the High Court rejected the constitutional application. - R: No: 484 (1) / 92, dated 14 5 1992 without any confusion. Yes, stupidity or circumstance, in which it was clearly made clear that the period of concession will begin from 1 2 1990 and end 30 1995 1995 with 29 29 1996 and the letter of credit opened on 13 9 1995. As a matter of fact, Section RO No. 484 (1) / 92 dated 14 5 1992 was not enforced, therefore, there is no waiver that can be claimed after the expiration of the specified period and Nor does the situation raise the question of a valid expectation, the filing of a customs duty / sales tax under Section 31A of the Customs Act, 1969, regardless of the date of the execution of the contract or the beginning of the letter. Credit Section 3L was given precedent and applied to cases where the exemption was withdrawn upon entry, the applicant has no right to what he has received, a violation. The question was not born with a 25% discount on customs duty and sales tax. Later, under Section RO No. 978 (1) / 95, 4 10, 1995, the courts presented the principles of valid expectation, promise waiver and locus punitativity. lawer from fb area from More kunda lawyer