Find a Lawyer

MESSRS SIMPSON WIRES (PVT.) LTD' THROUGH DIRECTOR, KARACHI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 11 constitutes a Central Excise Act (I of 1944), Sections 3 (b) and 4 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, RR 10 & 210 Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) )), 9 and 11 Sales tax as a consequential and continuous liability on the power of the order in pursuance of the showcase notice determining excise duty, excess duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act 1944 and Central Excise Rules 1944. Demand. The Excise Act, 1944 and Sales, Tax Act 1990 were two separate rules that had separate provisions for the collection of taxes or taxes and did not propose the provision of the Sales Tax Act 1990 to recover the sales tax on the showcase notice. Was gone Actually the liability order did not create liability for sales tax, etc., for which a separate showcase notice was compulsory under the Sales Tax Act 1990, followed by the automatic sale of sales tax (etc.) or There was no law to enforce the result. In relation to the central archive duty, the actual order of the order would be equivalent to harassment of irrevocable and non-judgmental sales tax liability on the strength of such order. Such waiver and commission would fall into the category of authority, anonymous demand clear. As was arbitrary, the illegal and abusive Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends canceling the unsolicited demand law firms from Nilore lawyer