Find a Lawyer

CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD. versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX

Officials believe that the Sales Tax Act, section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, had the benefit of Section 65, the Central Board of Revenue was the appropriate forum. Without pre-requisite completion of the justification notice and the reasons / reasons provided, in clear and clear terms, to determine what would fall under section 36 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, there was no legal consequence of the demanding authorities. For this reason and such failure of the issuing showrunners to disclose the reasons has led to the relevant Collector. The process of issuing the showcase notice began with the idea that the applicant company was responsible for the theft of the sales tax, therefore, would not serve any useful purpose in the practice of contacting the collector to provide the benefits of the sales tax. The decision of 65 of the Act 1990 was necessary for the tribunal to examine the scope of section 65 of the Sales Tax Act of 1990, and the Federal Government should have given a clear decision in which case the Federal Government in this case would be exempted from the sales tax. Could have been exempt. Under the provisions of Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, the question regarding the privilege of section 65 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 will require commitment through an independent forum; the Supreme Court remanded the trial tribunal for its determination. The tribunal did not attend. Such fundamental question and its jurisdiction failed to exercise jurisdiction in which the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and committed the same error. The Supreme Court compiled some questions and instructed the Tribunal that they best law firm from Khandabad lawyer