Find a Lawyer

S.T.A.-808/PB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH APRIL, 2003. versus S.T.A.-808/PB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 19TH APRIL, 2003.

Sections 3 (5), 3 (1A), 8 (1), 66 and 71 Section R795 (I) / 99, dated 30 30 1999 [Additional Tax Rules, 1999, R41 Section RO 551 (I) Revenue and Receipt)) / 96, submission of monthly return rolls on 1, 1996, 1996 demanding additional tax, be paid separately, as paid in violation of R5 of the payment of additional tax rules, 1999 accuracy. was done. Separate and explicitly excluding 15% of output tax on the output for the same tax period, and clearly imposing an additional tax of 5%, did not make any difference. Subordinate legislation should be amended to negate 5% additional tax adjustment on output: 15% will not incur any loss to the input tax treasury and there will be no illicit benefit to the registered person if the legal procedure is adopted by the registered person. So. Regulation 5 of the Additional Tax Rules, Regulation 5 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the author's requirement to return the tax and payment of the tax received by the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (Supplementary) Tax inclusive) was largely complied with by the taxpayer until the due date. By compulsorily and excessively imposing and receiving additional tax rules and regulations, the Appellant / Registered Person has suffered or has suffered any law, statute or damage to the public exchequer by R 5, 1999. Had not been applied, even if the procedure had been applied in Levy's R 5 and had followed the overall net results of the Additional Tax Rules, 1999, if the tax was paid by a certain date, if any Without the money, the appellant / registered person could not have asked for anything extra. famous high court advocate from Kahror Pacca lawyer