Find a Lawyer

SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-267 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. versus SALES TAX APPEAL NO. K-267 OF 2004, DECIDED ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.

Issuance of a showcase notice alleging sales tax non-payment of appeals from Sections 3, 14, 22, 23, 36 and 46 Appellate Tribunals observed that the appellant was involved in tax related activity during the relevant financial period, but No sales tax was paid. During this period, the department issued a show cause notice to the appellant alleging that it had violated the provisions of Sections 3, 14, 22 and 23 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 which stated that the notice of notice. Is silent on sub-clauses of section 36 of the Sales Tax Act. An analysis of the effect of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 36 of the Sales Tax Act of 1990, showed that the authority which had to issue the notice, therefore, must indicate in the notice that it Who will prosecute under the law? And the reasons for this must be very clearly and clearly included in the cause notice so that it can be ascertained that Section 36 (1) and (2) of the Sales Tax AC ) Or whether the showcase notice was issued. t, failure of the 1990 showcase notice issuance authority to ban showcase notices by issuing showcase notices to illegal and illegal authorities, failing to disclose such reasons and reasons, excluding inappropriate order. And the showcase notice was rejected. Warrants and time restrictions by law when you need a advocate from Makran lawyer