UNITED SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE
Sections 2 (46) (e), 7 (1), 20, 34, 47 and 73 Proof of Payment of Taxable Taxes Demanding additional tax penalties on advance persons to provide proof of payment under Section 73 of the Assistive Sales Tax Act, 1990 I failed and failed to deliver a verdict. As soon as appellate authorities passed the order against the assessee validity, it was necessary for a registered person to claim an adjustment in the input tax for which he was required to make a sales tax act under section 73. Payment was received under 1990, in the absence of proof of payment under section 73, the Appellate Tribunal rightly denied the adjustment of Sales Tax Act, 1990 It is important that under Section 20 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, this registered person notifies the collector or local sales tax officer within 14 days if he has made any specific change. Its registration request states that the SCC suppliers have made a request / information to the collector or local sales tax officer. The authorities reviewed the payment along with proof of supply which failed to check the supply. In addition to the proof of payment, the appellate tribunal correctly considered the supply to the unregistered person that the goods were already deposited at the time of delivery of the goods by taxable supply / assumption, which was due to the notice taken in excess. Neither the tax and penalties of the decision-making authority nor the appellate authorities sought to know whether the present Non-payment of sales tax at the time of the recovery was considered unconstitutional or it was assessed by the High Court on remand to such an extent. Additional taxes and cess on the advances received by the Assisi to discharge its obligations
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
