Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. S.T.A. NO. 586/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 18TH DECEMBER, 2004. versus APPEAL NO. S.T.A. NO. 586/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 18TH DECEMBER, 2004.

Non-payment of such cell sales tax as provided in Section R127 (I) / 1996 of purchase of lint bales of section 34 and 33 of R127 (1) / 1996, 10 11 1996, dated 10 11 1996. And the applicant of the wrong adjustment in input tax against the demand output tax claimed that the staff member in charge of sales tax matters was on leave and in his absence the sales tax amount could not be paid and the review could not be made. The plaintiff had no intention of avoiding the sales tax and he was also deposited. As pointed out by the auditors, the Adjudicating Officer decided on a sales tax as well as an additional tax and penalty of ud 3 percent plus tax and penalty. Additional tax payments were allowed in favor of a beneficial amendment to section 34. The Sales Tax Act, 1990, which was then applied to Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, which was not mentioned in the showcase notice, was exempted from the imposed fines, the clerk was instructed to confirm, pay the principal. The sales tax amount and, if the entire original amount or any part thereof has already been paid, may be adjusted against the adjusted liability. The collector was further instructed to calculate the additional tax at the rate that was applied in view of the currently beneficial amendments. In this case in section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the appellate tribunal was fined. best advocate from Tando Mohd Khan lawyer