Find a Lawyer

SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-171 OF 2005, DECIDED ON 8TH OCTOBER, 2005. versus SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-171 OF 2005, DECIDED ON 8TH OCTOBER, 2005.

Section & 36 & of 46 Taxes Deliberately or Deliberately Appealing Additional Taxes and Fines Appellate Tribunal Appeal Notice was given to the appellant, which included various allegations of violation of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 Was stolen or intentionally stolen. It was liable to show that the appellant / taxpayer failed to indicate whether the defendant had intentionally acted for non-payment of tax show cause notice due to some collusion. The alleged act of payment was the result of collusion or it was a deliberate act to deceive the government. To prove the allegations of delinquency or deliberate act on a department, the law needs to be performed in a particular way by law. The same should be done by law before the showcase notice. Notwithstanding this, no direct demand notice may be issued to the appellant for allegedly paying a short levy of income tax. Under subsection (1) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, it was necessary to show that the taxpayers knew or had reason to believe that their actions were the result of deliberate or deliberate, The other allegation will be vague and will not be as per the law, the reasons and reasons given in this notice could not be ascertained whether the appellant intentionally and willfully withheld the payment of sales tax or was the result of a major mistake. Was. It cannot be, in the circumstances that it cannot be said that the case will fall under section (1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, in the absence of a charge of collusion or willful action, additional taxes and penalties. advocates from Lala rukh lawyer