Find a Lawyer

AL-FATEH TRADERS, KARACHI versus COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEAL), KARACHI

Sections 73, 11 (2), 34 and 36 do not accept payment through certain transaction checks, but after a fixed period, a legitimate registered person was charged who failed to make payments through banking and financial transactions. And he was entitled to claim tax adjustments as well. The registered person failed to explain the reason for doing so and accordingly, the charges were leveled against him and the adjusting officer paid the tax. The appeal was denied on the basis of the appeal and in addition to the fine and default surcharge registered Booth was unable to present. In support of his claim and his appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority, even at the appellate tribunal stage, the registered person had failed to produce any documentary evidence on which he could support his claim. ? Sales Tax Act 1990 violated the provisions of the Act and was active in the appellate tribunal because the appellate tribunal lacked any competence.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• SHAHSONS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN v. C.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN 2011 PTD 2158
• ALBERTA SPORTS (PVT.) LTD. SIALKOT v. C.I.R., R.T.O., SIALKOT 2011 PTD 2169
• IMRAN PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE v. COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), LAHORE 2011 PTD 2171
• ADNAN HONDA CENTRE, KAMRA v. COLLECTOR (APPEALS) SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, R.T.O., RAWALPINDI 2011 PTD 2180
• ANMOL PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE v. C.I.R., (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., LAHORE 2011 PTD 2216
• C.I.T., ZONE-1, R.T.O.; KARACHI v. Mrs. SALMA AMIN TAI, SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI 2011 PTD 2234
• UNITEX INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI v. A.C.I.R.-B, AUDIT DIVISION-I, R.T.O., KARACHI 2011 PTD 2252
• AVARI HOTELS LIMITED, KARACHI v. COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL DIVISION, L.T.U., KARACHI 2011 PTD 2265

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

divorce advocates from Tarnol lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes