Find a Lawyer

SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-55 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH MARCH, 2002. versus SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-55 OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH MARCH, 2002.

Sales Tax Act 1990 Sections 3 (3), 7, 8 (1) (a), 10, 11 and 36 Input tax, adjustment of manufactured goods from 1 7 1996 to 21 10 1996 to impose sales tax on appellant adjusted tax. Were responsible for On payment of the raw material purchased / imported during such tax period, the department subsequently rejected such adjustment and raised the demand that on 21 10 1996, a portion of the raw material was still in stock. I was and was not used to the production of taxable goods. The validity of Section 7 of the Act shows that a registered person is entitled to deduction of the input tax during the tax period shall be made in connection with the provision of tax in respect of the tax or during that period. Purpose \ Purpose \ and \ Supplied or manufactured in Section 7 (I) was an indication of the fact that the payment in respect of input tax payment as well as the amount of input tax paid during a particular tax period. Was also available for return. The purpose of the appeal for taxable provision was to obtain the receipt and provide them with taxable tax at the time of payment of input tax. It was not the department's case that either such supply was not received or such supply was not included in the negative list as provided in section 8 of the Companies Act. The payment of input tax to the goods in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Act would not be in accordance with the claim of the input tax but was related to the payment of the input tax paid during the tax. Appeal under the term and the purpose for which the supply was made or the purpose for which the supply was received and which was never suspected by the Department. how to become a advocate from Madinah lawyer