S.T.A. NO. 1334/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 5TH APRIL, 2002. versus S.T.A. NO. 1334/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 5TH APRIL, 2002.
The Scope Adjusting Officer of the Section 3 Tax reduced the sales tax amount by accepting the applicant's request that the sales tax was to be charged at the actual cost of delivery, rather than the total project cost volume the appellant claimed to have Can't pay. The same department, which was supplied, did not pay the sales tax included in it, the accuracy appellant, as a confession, was registered with the sales tax department and two years before the expiry of the registration date. Cannot register. The Adjudicating Officer passed the Balancing and Speaking Order keeping all relevant provisions of the law, while keeping the order for sales tax plus the amount of sales tax, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the penalty amount because the Appellant's The conduct was not an invitation. It was amended by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with the Order
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top advocate from Badin lawyer
