APPEAL CASE NO. S.T.A.-385/PB/TRF OF 2001, DECIDED ON 29TH AUGUST, 2003. versus APPEAL CASE NO. S.T.A.-385/PB/TRF OF 2001, DECIDED ON 29TH AUGUST, 2003.
Sections 3, 33 and 34 Sections R508 (I) / 95 Dated 14 6 1995 CBR Certificate No. 1 (62) S&R / 2/92 Dated 26 11 1995 Damage production based on tax jurisdiction formula Supplemental auditor reports without accounting sales tax payments, plus sales tax receipts as well as additional tax and penalty penalties on such pressurized products based on formula accuracy survey report, indicate that , The output ratio was not bothered by size or types and both inputs and outputs were determined on a weight basis. Assessments failed to state that 100kg of import privileges Why the output of 4kg would not be produced using K input was true in both the audits detected / observed. And the law did not properly maintain sales and production records and exclude production and tax deductions, as the showcase notice states that Assisi did not show good reason why it was not accepted. Should be done and did not offer any argument to counter the sales tax demand, the appellate tribunal appellate tribunal affirmed the sales tax demand. Receiving the additional tax by the due date would otherwise be required to pay the entirety of the assessee sales tax and the additional tax penalty was deducted. In other fines the amount of sales tax was deducted equal to 5% of the original order was appellate. Modified by the tribunal and accordingly the appeal was disposed of
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
female advocates from Mubarik Pur lawyer
