COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, QUETTA versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (APPEALS), QUETTA
Section 10 and 7 Input Tax Returns Section R1010 (I) / 2003 Dated 25 11 11 2003 Section RO 609 (I) / 2004 Dated 16 7 2004 Import Refund Claims on the claim that at the import stage Sales tax was paid at a cost of Rs 9,280 per metric ton and after that the sales tax valuation was reduced from Rs 9,280 to Rs 4,610, the claimant was entitled to a refund at the reduced rate. Yes, accuracy was imported on 19 5 2004 and 21 8 2004. Import value was Rs 9,280 per metric ton and second import price was Rs 4,610 as the government reduced or fixed it in 7 7 2004 first import. For the purpose of, 16 7 2004 the default The clerk had no incompatibility because it is effective Section RO 609 (I) / 2004 date of operation was 16 7 2004, and the tax charged at the higher rate was non-refundable because the final product was also taxable more than The tax paid on imports was adjusted in the scope of section 7 Sales Tax Act, 1990 Section RO 609 (I) / 2004, 16 7 2 004 was supposed to work and not to work as a surrogate. Was when output tax also decreased when the price went down after 7-7 2004, but the input tax payer will be adjusted for higher cost by the claimant at a earlier date. That was, the amount claimed by taxpayers was similar to that in very high tax VAT type taxes, the input tax was worthwhile regardless of the increase and decrease in values, Section 2 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 (46) There was no contradiction in the internationally accepted principle of taxation; issuing the showcase notice was not only wrong, but it was also informed that such department
