APPEAL NO. S.T. 169/PB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 31ST OCTOBER, 2006. versus APPEAL NO. S.T. 169/PB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 31ST OCTOBER, 2006.
The Appellate Tribunal's claim for export refunds, dismissing sections 8, 10, 33, 34, 36 and 46 export refund claims, was dismissed on the basis that the appellant's suppliers were given theirs. Were not found at the address. Inadequate supply of lier Many can have many dimensions, each of which varies in its gravity. The situation will be even more serious if it is found that the given address was a fake or a place (building, plot, area). Etc.) didn't exist. The inquiry and its report must specify the nature of the absence or absence of the suppliers, so that appropriate conclusions can be made, on the same reason the supplier's non-solicitation allegedly refuses to claim a refund. It was absolutely disrespectful to me, which seemed arrogantly sarcastic. Since different applicants were treated differently under similar circumstances, they were also separated by the same Adjudicating Officer as directed. Send to the Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (Refunds) for Double Check, Appellant's Claim \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
