Find a Lawyer

MESSRS EVERNEW AGENCIES versus CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE

Sections 32 and 209 (3) Section 50 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance (1979) Customs Agents Licensing Rules, 1971 Section RO 13 (1) / 1971, Date 8 1 1971 Correct rate of vehicle import clearing agent failure Not to mention that the holding tax on the agent's request for a tax deduction from the agent's agent was that he was not liable to pay such tax, but it was the importer's responsibility not to pay him. Nor did the importer know how to impose such a tax. And the unsubstantiated demand was banned that the precision agent be considered importer. It was the agent's responsibility to learn about tax deductions and import duties. The agent's primary responsibility was to fill the columns of bill entries in a proper manner and accordingly. Neglect by the agent should be deliberately ignored by them. Ignorance of the law would be no excuse and the agent could not be afforded the benefit of his ignorance. Thus, such error was deliberately made by the agent to deceive state expenditure. , The limitation period under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, was three years; the imported demand was legal \ r \ n power of attorney advocate Sahiwal lawyer