Find a Lawyer

S.T. APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 21ST AUGUST, 2003. versus S.T. APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2001, DECIDED ON 21ST AUGUST, 2003.

Section 32, 38, 40 and 40A Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Section 103 Search and Seizure of Appellant's Record by a Sales Tax Superintendent Appointed by the Deputy Collector, Affirmed by the Sales Tax Act, 1990 32. The person to whom the Board of Revenue or the Collector gave such authority to the Board of Revenue or the Collector did not issue any authority letter, nor was it kept on record by the department, if so The delegation of options could no longer be assigned to the same deputy collector, if it was assumed the collector had the option to make such a search or inquiry, under section 32 (2) (3) of section 32 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 In the meantime, he could not give the same powers to the superintendent. Section 40 of the Cell Tax Act 1990 has not been complied with as required by the CCP and it is against the law for the Superintendent of the Superintendent to make such visits and obtain documents in his custody. The High Court accepted the order directing the department to return the documents which accepted the appeal within seven. Day pakistani advocates Gadoon Amazai lawyer