Find a Lawyer

COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD versus AMTEX (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD

Refund Claims of Refund Claims Section 10, 66, 67 and 46 Refund Claims filed by the person registered for the respective period were rejected by the Assistant Collector under which the Assistant Collector was approved. Appeal was filed by the person registered against the order. Accepted by the Commissioner (Appeal), the Appellate Tribunal's Department of Representatives could not reject the Collector's appeal before the Department filed an appeal, with no concrete material evidence in the power of the Department Representative's motion. Was not so to maintain the Collector's appeal. And the appeal at the location was dismissed

Related judgments — Inland, 2012

• HONDA ATLAS CAR (PAKISTAN), LTD., LAHORE v. C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, R.T.O., LAHORE 2012 PTD 5
• C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., MULTAN v. ALI RAZA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN 2012 PTD 25
• NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD v. C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 31
• MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN 2012 PTD 34
• INTERLOOP (PVT.) LTD. KHURRIANWALA, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR, F.S.T., R.T.O., FAISALABAD 2012 PTD 40
• MULTAN ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN v. SUPERINTENDENT, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., MULTAN 2012 PTD 73
• CHEEMA COTTON FACTORY, BUREWALA v. C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., MULTAN 2012 PTD 82
• ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., LAHORE v. PRIME PVC FACTORY, MULTAN 2012 PTD 93

All Inland judgments of 2012 →

female advocates from Mangla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes