Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. S.T. 285/PB OF 2003. DECIDED ON 27TH MAY, 2005 versus APPEAL NO. S.T. 285/PB OF 2003. DECIDED ON 27TH MAY, 2005

Sections 2 (14), 2 (44), 3 (1), 6 (8), 7 (1), 11 (2), 33, 34, 36 and 46 appeal for general fines and additional tax appellate tribunal auditors During the audit of the appellant's record identifying the application, certain contradictions and irregularities, the Adjudication Officer issued notice to the accused in violation of the relevant section of the Sales Tax Act 1990, in light of the Auditors' report and Decided that the appellants would pay additional tax under section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 as they adjusted their exemption from wrongful supply tax against the supply. That the appellants will pay the sales tax on fixed assets and when they have been cleared they will not pay the sales tax on the scrap because the tax was already paid. That the appellants paid the sales tax on the advance received, the advance payment received by the appellants was not proved to be a non-payment of sales tax. Since the deduction of the input tax paid on the mobile phones by the appellants was violated by the appellants. famous lower court advocate from Kandiaro lawyer