Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. 115/ST/IB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 6TH APRIL, 2006. versus APPEAL NO. 115/ST/IB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 6TH APRIL, 2006.

Sections 34 and 33 Special Procedures for the Ginning Industry Rules, 1996, R6 (2) (3) CBR Letter C No. 3 (13) STP / 96 (PT1), dated 24 8 2002 Additional tax The penalty was not stolen by the tax department as well as not sure of the exact tax liabilities and the determination of the correct liabilities was determined by reconciling the facts and stating the facts to finalize the judicial proceedings. Later and the Assessors not only paid the actual amount but also an additional amount. Assessors cannot be accused of deliberately deferring sales tax under the circumstances, and imposing additional taxes and penalties against them during the period of remission against them. It was not justified. The taxes he had already paid under the Amnesty Scheme and the entire amount of penalty against him was already deposited by the Adjustment Officer Assessment, the original amount which was verified by the sales tax authorities through a reconciliation report. Was confirmed, as there was no such charge against them as they could approach the appropriate authorities according to the law for more money paid by the assessee. famous supreme court advocate from Chashma lawyer