MESSRS HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Sections 5, Proviso II, 6 and 15 Customs Act (IV of 1969), Sections 30, 79 and 104 of the Finance Act (IX of 1996), Section R212 (I) / 91, dated 14 3 1991 [Section RO 367 as amended (I) / 91, dated 7 5 1994] Notice No. SL No. 65/96 (A) dated 6 1996 1996 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition Sales Tax Exemption Changes in Tax Rate, Promise Esopel, the principle of enforcement provides for the second time to Section 5 of the Domestic Use Sales Tax Act 1990 [as it was before July 1, 1996] under section 104 of the Customs Act, section 79 of the 1969 Act and its application The offer of entry was covered. In the registration of the bill under section79, the amendments made by the Finance Act, 1996 were excluded only from 1 7 1996, stating clearly that if the legislature intended to enforce it with disappointment It could, therefore, supply the section 5 of the Island Tax Sales Tax Act of 1990, so the relevant period, in the present case, was fully applicable and as a result the importer claimed that the sales tax on imports. Waiver from payment of payment was not available The department was not open to any exemption on receipt of sales tax. In the present case, a bill entry was filed in which the amendment was still present but the importer could not avail the same as the conditions under which the importer could not meet the imprisonment before 1996 4, while the exemption was already withdrawn. Was taken 6 From 1996 to 1996 and the provisions contained in IInd Provo in section 5 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 became the operative theory of prom estoppel, even under the circumstances, the principles were not attracted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
