Find a Lawyer

S.T.AS. NOS. 551 TO 554/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 9TH JUNE, 2003. versus S.T.AS. NOS. 551 TO 554/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 9TH JUNE, 2003.

Sections 13, 7 and Sixth Schedule, Item No. 49 Section RO 839 (1) / 98 Dated 23 7 1998, the appellant was instructed to pay the sales tax with additional taxes and penalties on the basis of which the tractors Sales are in commercial quantities. For agricultural purposes and not for development purposes, such as Development Authority, Dry Port Trust and Punjab Cooperative Banks which had no agricultural purpose, accuracy tractor provided by appellant HS Code Heading 87 01 Department of Agriculture The tractors did not provide any evidence. The supply of these tractors was not for agricultural purposes. The audit object was based solely on the assumption that buyers such as Development Authority, Dry Port Trust, and Punjab Co-operative Banks obtained tractors in commercial quantities from the appellants and it is evident that the agrarian is not. Yes, was put to non-agricultural use and no refund was available. There was no law in empowering the app. Ants examined the use of tractors after the sale to the buyers. There was no evidence from the department that the agricultural tractors in question were not being used by the concerned buyers for agricultural purposes, in my view, based on the name of the tractor buyers. It is not enough to burden heavy appellants with sales tax payments as well as penalty payments. The department did not present any evidence that the appellants had supplied the tractors for any other purpose. Apart from this, the agricultural appeals were accepted and the appellate tribunal dismissed the orders. immigration advocates email from Shedani sharif lawyer