Find a Lawyer

MESSRS CHERAT CEMENT CO., NOWSHERA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 7, 8 13 and 66 Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Assessing Tax Liability Stock Refund Exemption Input Tax Stock received during the sales tax exemption period Was paid on. Stock was used in taxable supplies which was claimed to be sales tax paid on existing stock used in taxable supply because the return was only for stock received in the 12 months which was in the Sales Tax Act 1990 Was acceptable under section 66 and the small amount was subsequently deferred by the Central Board of Revenue to seek clarification, after which, the senior officers of the collector decided that since the sales tax Act 1990 section 66 The one-year range included is very clear, so there is no need to send this matter to the center. Accuracy of the Board of Revenue There was no reason why the Central Board of Revenue had a clear reference to the need for clarification in the central setting. Why should not such a clarification be obtained by the Collectorate Language of Section 66 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, suggesting that a one-year restriction in the case of repayment should be applied to instability, error or omission or input tax? Not because of the deduction It has been claimed that where it is otherwise permissible the input tax cannot be claimed at the time of purchase of raw material as the last product was exempt from sales tax even though the section 66 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 The case will apply. In this case, after the withdrawal of cement manufacturers, many cases will be involved and uniform treatment will be required. top civil advocates from Hub Inds Estate lawyer