Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.7(153)ST/IB/2003 AND OLD NO.7(88)ST/IB/2002, DECIDED ON 31ST MAY, 2006. versus APPEAL NO.7(153)ST/IB/2003 AND OLD NO.7(88)ST/IB/2002, DECIDED ON 31ST MAY, 2006.

Sections 34, 33 (2) (CC), 10 (3), 3 (3) (A) and 67 additional taxes and penalties shall be adjusted on the post of refund of the surplus tax as well as on the penalties that carry forward The overdue balance input tax was shown incorrectly and was converted to a taxable taxable return / carrier forward amount and remained unpaid for a specified period, the sales tax payable for those months. Later the other months were adjusted with the return claims but there was no additional sales tax. The taxpayer appellant / taxpayer did not review it at the time of the adjustment. Claiming that excessive input tax refunds over time are grossly disregarded in the legal provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as well as the authorities' compulsion to make adjustments in clear cut directions, and so on. The accuracy of the sale was not disclosed, nor was the Department able to provide any evidence that the original sales tax amount in the form of refund was not due to appeal. Such order was not approved by the Adjustment Officer Input Tax for recovery by NTS and had a fundamental right of adjustment taxpayers and could only be stripped or prevented on technical grounds and therefore The refund was withheld. Without objections, they were not released even after the submission of bank and bank guarantees, it was illegal to issue show cause notices without mentioning relevant sections 10 and 36 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, resulting in any demand for additional taxes and penalties. Was also illegal by the appellate tribunal and was set aside patent advocate from Shujabad lawyer