SALES TAX APPEAL NO.K-108 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 17TH OCTOBER, 2005. versus SALES TAX APPEAL NO.K-108 OF 2000, DECIDED ON 17TH OCTOBER, 2005.
Sections 2 (46), 26, 34, 36, and 46 Appellate Tribunal appeal for short levy sales tax recovery. The basic charge against the appellant was that it had reduced direct costs, including insurance, freight and forwarding, packing charges. Under section 2 (46) of section 2 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (section 46 (46)), the sales tax was not at the actual cost of supply specified in section 2 (46) of the 1990 Act. The transaction, the price of a supply was difficult to detect, the supplied products will be evaluated at the open market price The law also provided for clause (subsection 46) of section 2 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, where sufficient ? The invoice has reasons to believe that the logistics cost was not properly announced, no action will be taken by a valuation committee comprising a representative of the Trade and Sales Tax Department established by the Collector. The law was never taken by law and was in violation of the legal provisions pertaining to the procedure adopted by the Adjudication Officer to review the price declared in the sales invoice, the order imposed was not in accordance with the law, App 341, 342, was appointed under. 344, 3451 A, B, C and D
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
