SHAHID CABLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE versus C.I.R., ZONE-VIII, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE
Sections (3 ()) and 1 (of) of the tax collection did not impose or minimize or improperly return the First Appellate Authority dismissing the claim for input tax adjustment and in the original case the order The matter was remanded on remand to the Education Officer on remand. The Commissioner has been asked by the taxpayers to discuss the evidence related to the extension of the taxpayers' period, 120 days within the time limit specified for the first time under section 11 (4) of the Sales Tax Act 1990. Has been banned. And it was admittedly issued on Showcase Notice 3 2 2011 while the order was passed on 28 7 2011 which was punctual. Revenue claimed that the commissioner had, in the post of 2011, extended the special order period to 31 to approve the court order. 7 2011 was in the same timeframe when taxpayers passed the order on 28 6 2011 that its limitation expired on 3 6 2011, while the extension was allowed on 9 6 2011. Was allowed after the expiration of There was no prohibition in the eyes of the law, which was actually time-barred because it was approved outside the limits provided under the law. Because the show notice was issued. 3 2 2011 and the adjudicating officer was under legal obligation to pass the order until 3 6 2011 which he failed to do because the order was passed on 28 7 2011 which was out of time. A post provided under section 36 (3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, in order to approve the order dated 9th 2011
