Find a Lawyer

MATIARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (SALES TAX), HYDERABAD

Section 3 (1A) and 2 (25) Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000, R8 (2) for tax return memorandum and correction ???? Further tax filing, evidence as per Appellate Tribunal Rules No counter affidavit Was not entered. Refunds were rejected and denied by the department on some important law and factual errors. Prior to the gross misuse of the principles of natural justice the order was withdrawn and the order removed the error and it was directed that the lower authorities return the taxpayers. Invalid amount received

Related judgments — Inland, 2013

• C.I.R., LD, LTU, KARACHI v. Dr. ZULFIQAR H. TUNIO 2013 PTD 235
• ALLIED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE 2013 PTD 246
• DECENT TEXTILE, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 304
• C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD v. PROGRESSIVE WEAVERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 306
• POLYMER MARKETING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE v. D.C.I.R., UNIT-06, ZONE-VII, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE 2013 PTD 313
• CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R.(A), R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2013 PTD 316
• SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INLAND REVENUE SERVICES) ZONE-IV 2013 PTD 353
• SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, KARACHI 2013 PTD 379

All Inland judgments of 2013 →

law firms from Besham lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes