Find a Lawyer

BASHIR PRNTING (PVT.) versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD

Refund of jurisdiction over the scope and time limit for input tax returns from the return of sections 10 and 45, the amount involved or wrongfully refunded exceeds ten thousand rupees, but more than one million No, the amount involved in this case was more than a million rupees. This show cause notice was issued on 10-4 2007, while the order was originally approved on 8th 2007, which was more than 100 days later and it is not mentioned anywhere in the order original In which case the Order of Extended Accuracy was approved by the Assistant Collector who did not have legal jurisdiction at the relevant time and was not accepted in the Order of this Act within the time provided in the original law Which made both the terms legal. The order of the First Appellate Authority was ordered to be unlawful without any jurisdiction, the appellate tribunal said.

Related judgments — Inland, 2011

• HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LTD, LAHORE v. C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE 2011 PTD 967
• INNOVATIVE IMPEX, KARACHI v. COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI 2011 PTD 1010
• SIGMA MOTORS (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD v. TAXATION OFFICER (AUDIT-V), LTU, ISLAMABAD 2011 PTD 1039
• COSY INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR SALES TAX, RTO, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1062
• MUMTAZ GHANI TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. C.I.R.(A), (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1073
• MUMTAZ GHANI TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1087
• AL-REHMAT TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1108
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (RTO), FAISALABAD v. KEY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD, FAISALABAD 2011 PTD 1120

All Inland judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocates phone number from Khanpur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes