Find a Lawyer

versus

The delayed payment of the sales tax collector appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, Sections 2 (44), 23, 34 and 46, which, under the impugned order, found that the appellant company had supplied the goods to the buyers. And received a portion of the cost of advance delivery, but did not issue a sales tax invoice at the time of receipt of these advances, but the appellant did not collect tax in the tax period in which these advances were made under the Sales Tax Act. The provisions of 2 (44) were found. , 1990 provided that the time of supply was either the time of delivery of the goods or the receipt of payment, whichever was earlier under the provisions of section 23 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, at the time the sales tax invoice was issued. Had to go The appellant's view of the supply of goods was that the late payment of the sales tax was not intentional, but rather a result of a dispute arising from the decision of the higher courts that interpreted the word payment differently. The timing of supply, as provided in section 2 (44) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, did not justify the imposition of additional taxes and thus the interpretation of the provision of the dispute term, and related to the timing of supply, which ultimately rested. had gone. There was no dispute in connection with the payment of the original sales tax from the orders laid down in PTD 1179 in 2004, only the dispute was related to late payment as late payment of sales tax by the appellant was not intentional. , But because of this controversy, the decision of the superior courts justified the submission of different interpretations of the supply time period, the additional tax and penalty term imposed on the appellant. famous lower court advocate from Taunsa sharif lawyer