Find a Lawyer

DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY LTD., LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 36 (3) Central Excise Act (Constitution of 1944), Section 33 (3) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Taxes not levied or levied. On the 26th November, 2002, the notice of sale tax and excise duty related to the combined return limit was issued. The department had to approve the order within 135 days and 45 days, respectively, after issuing the showcase notice. In fact, the decree stated the date of the verdict 11. 1 2005, which was passed on 14 7 2005 for additional taxes and penalties as well as sales tax and central excise liabilities, did not observe the mandatory provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and the Central Excise Act 1944. That the additional collector lacked jurisdiction to decide the case as the show cause notice was issued by the Collector (adjustment) and this order was actually shown on Dec 11, 2005 and this order 14 7 2005 was sent after more than six months. The decision on the date of decision was made by a presidential order far beyond the time limit set on 11 1 2005, which, in keeping with the Federal Tax Ombudsman's rule, set the principle on where the public works Is given the authority to create liability against the citizen only within the stipulated period. It is imperative that the department create both sales tax as well as additional tax and central excise duty and penalties but the order contained in the presidential order will not only apply to sales tax but also to central excise. The order, as a whole, was affected by the time limit as provided in the Department of Law and the provisions of the Mill Administration. tax advocates from Bahawalpur lawyer