Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. S.T.A. 2011/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 22ND OCTOBER, 2004. versus APPEAL NO. S.T.A. 2011/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 22ND OCTOBER, 2004.

Section 11, 36 (1) and 34 Section R131 (I) / 98, dated 9-12 1998 Tax Estimation of Cotton Seed Recovery Ratio from Sales Tax Evasion by Suppressing Cotton Seed Production and Price @ 54 9 It was announced that 62 62 62 seed seed value, compared to the normal recovery ratio, is suppressed / supplied without issuing a sales tax invoice. Is less than the minimum price of Rs. In accordance with Notification Section RO 1361 (I) / 98, dated 9-12 1998, the applicant was instructed to submit the fixed amount of sales tax with additional tax, the collection of cotton seeds collected from 58 to 59 percent. Will be determined by the Central Board of Trustees. Revenue appellant announced a recovery of 95%, while the auditors estimated the collection of cotton badges at 5 percent of the minimum production for which the appellant received a sales tax. Appellant also provided a cotton badge at a price that was the least. The supply tax fixed by the Central Board of Revenue Theft was correctly identified by the sales tax against suppressing the supply price. The Tribunal directed additional. Due to the beneficial amendments made in Section 34 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, the tax should be calculated at the time the order was amended and the appeal was partially accepted. best law firms from Sudhnoti lawyer