Find a Lawyer

APPEAL S.T.A. NO.676/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 28TH MAY, 2005. versus APPEAL S.T.A. NO.676/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 28TH MAY, 2005.

Sections 3, 11, 33, 34, 36 and 46 Quantum Evidence (10 of 1984), Sales Tax on Cotton Supply Scope of Weight Loss Cotton Seeds Due to Moisture and Sun Shine Extra tax appellant with badge order claiming that he was wrongly and illegally charged extra tax with extra tax due to loss of weight due to supply of moisture and sunlight. No evidence was brought while the law was applied in martyrdom, 1984, to justify the sale tax proceedings for the acquisition of the Central Board of Revenue in the textile industry. Appellate Tribunal allowed production within the range of 58 to 59 of Note For the purposes of sales taxation, the output announced at the time of production of 59% appellant's cotton seed was 63% to 17% of which cotton seeds Due to lack of moisture due to lack of moisture. Production time was always wet, which caused weight loss over time due to environmental factors. The appellant filed a sales tax on the revenue ratio, which was higher than the Central Board of Revenue's fixed ratio in the textile industry note. And the proportion obtained in various cases by the Appellate Tribunal Cotton Badge was developed in the wet condition, which reduces weight due to long storage and other environmental factors. The appeal was accepted and the order was actually set aside by the appellate along with the order of appeal. Tribunal \ r \ n \ r \ n ask a advocate free from Punch lawyer