Find a Lawyer

S.T.A. 1057/PB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 17TH APRIL, 2003. versus S.T.A. 1057/PB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 17TH APRIL, 2003.

Appellant's objectionable reason for not receiving Section 3, 2 (44), 6 (2), 22 (D), 33 (2) (CC) and 34 taxpayer's Advancement Advance Tax Advance Tax We could. Determine the actual nature of the money that everyone, including the appellant, was called "in advance" and against which taxable goods were provided on such date after the receipt of advance, progress under section 2 (44). the supply time). ) The sales tax act, 1990 and such receipts were to be taxed on advance receipts and not on the basis of the actual supply of goods from the period of additional sales tax tax on such developments as it would receive. Applicants for the tax period that were paid in the form of tax at the total cost of supply to the consumers at the time of actual delivery, additional tax under appellant section 34 and penalty under section 33 (2) (CC). Was imposed by the Appellate Tribunal against the legal requirements read with Section 2 (44) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 Sales Tax Act, 1990, due to tax payments. Upcoming implementation was rejected as a special case and was given strict warning to be careful in the future. inheritance advocates near Narang Mandi lawyer