APPEAL S.T.A. NO. 1038/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 24TH DECEMBER, 2004. versus APPEAL S.T.A. NO. 1038/LB OF 2000, DECIDED ON 24TH DECEMBER, 2004.
Sections 34 and 33 Section R461 (I) / 99 Dated 949 1999 Section RO 247 (I) / 04, Dated 5 2004 The decision to evade the sale tax against the supply of extra tax cotton is based on the evidence. went. Record of sales tax amount payable with additional taxes and penalties is available on record. The appellant claims that the original sales tax was paid by cross tax order as soon as it was received from the buyer and therefore there was a real delay. Recovery of the banking instrument from the buyer; the additional tax was not payable as the federal government had already waived the additional tax payment through Section RO 461 (I) / 99 dated 9/4 1999. The government thereafter notified No 24 O (I) / 04 of the exemption dated 5 5 2004 exempted the payment of additional tax for the registered persons who had paid the original sales tax amount and since the principal The amount was paid, except that Section R247 (I) / 04 dated 5 2004 2004 required the applicant to deposit 25% of the additional tax payable by collecting 25% of the additional tax so that the additional 75% exemption from taxes and penalties. 25% of the additional tax liability was not deposited within the specified time under the exemption notification The benefit of the amnesty scheme was available to those who pay the arrears in accordance with the terms and conditions of the exemption notification section R247. (I) / 04 dated 5 5 2004 Appellant failed to avail the Amnesty Scheme as the correct amount of additional tax was not collected. There was no general waiver benefit. Appellate Tribune to lower tax rates
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
