Section 3B Extra Tax Collection etc. OBR Letter No. 1 (17) CED / 96 Dated 24 12 2004 After the decision of the Federal Board of Revenue by the phone companies to receive the tax, the SCCC has to pay less tax. Started and became a direct beneficiary, benefiting from the direct tax exemption that proved that taxation was being tolerated, followed by the ruling Assisi 24 of 2004. Prior to the decision, he was paying more tax on the total amount and started paying less tax on the discounted amount. The issuance of the Federal Board of Revenue's decision on 24 12 2004 and self-concession by the Assisi on transactions before 24 12 before 2004 proved that there was no change in the taxation rates for consumers. How can the Department argue that after 24 2004 2004, in connection with the transaction, the tax incidence was issued to the consumer as exemption, if the rate was the same before 24 and 2004? He assumes that he was unable to receive the tax and that he could only pass on the cost of the services he was receiving from the consumers. It was not proof of any tax component which was proof of that. That was, there was no change in the calling rate before and after the Federal Board of Revenue's decision was issued. The Federal Board of Revenue of 24 12 2004 allowed taxation at a discounted rate as per its decision dated 24 2004 and was satisfied that after 24 that 2004 consumers were not offered tax receipt, back. Why is it time to argue that, at the same prices, consumers pay tax
