S. T. A. NO. 1223/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 2ND APRIL, 2002. versus S. T. A. NO. 1223/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 2ND APRIL, 2002.
Sections 3, 6, 7, 11, 22 and 26 were taxed based on photocopies of the invoice, which was provided by the informant, allegedly issued by the appellant to show. It was supplied to the unregistered person, collected sales tax but did not deposit the same in the treasury which the appellant had not encountered in the original record during the proceedings and the wrong order regarding the invoice. I was mistaken, on multiple requests from the appellate tribunal, in the absence of the department failing to produce the same regarding the original record. The Lit Tribunal was not in a position to ultimately determine whether the Adjudicating Officer's search was based on a record and, therefore, whether the original invoice reference was factual or not, to protect it. The appellate tribunal upheld the interest of both parties, after hearing the parties, rejecting the same decision for fresh decision in accordance with law. Presenting the evidence they like
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
