Find a Lawyer

MESSRS TREAT CORPORATION versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE

Sections 2 (46), 3, 7, 33, 34 and 47 apply for a trade discount made under the Consumer Promotion Scheme to the High Court Appellant Corporation, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of shed blades, Was supplying blades to contain packets. 10 blades, but in the relevant year, the appellant provided in special packing in which one blade was added to the packet and one blade containing 11 blades was sold at a cost of 10 blades because of the Consumer Promotion Scheme. Appellant was presented with the show cause. Authorities observed that the appellant provided taxable tax on shaving blades without payment of sales tax which is Rs. 14,02,356 for the corresponding year under which the department claimed that the sales tax act 1990 No registered person is allowed in. In terms of money, make a concession in quantitative form, the appellant is found liable not only for sales tax, but also for extra money, under section 34 and fines under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The permissible extra blade tax was the taxable tax supplied by the appellant during a viable activity that resulted in the sale of 11 blades at a cost, although the discount amount is still similar to the sales promotion schemes. Was concerned with market practice. But it was contended that the exemption was made in quantitative terms which was not defined by the definition of supply supply price. The provisions of Section 2 (46) (d) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 clearly stated the manner in which I had to mention the small price. Invoice In this case the price of a blade in the invoice issued in this case list of advocates from Liaquat Pur lawyer