Find a Lawyer

YASRAB COTTON INDUSTRIES, MAILSI versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 36 (1) Section RO 488 (I) / 04 Dated 12 6 2004 Section RO 25 (I) / 06 Dated 9 1 2006 Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000) Tax Recovery Adjustment of Input Tax by imposing or not imposing small or improperly providing cotton seed oil to unregistered person so issuing show cause notices for collection of sales tax with additional tax and penalty on input. Tax adjustments are not acceptable to the complainant because cotton was badge oil. The complainant who sold the unregistered person claimed that the input contained against the electricity bills was admissible irrespective of whether the person registered or unregistered under Section R25 (I) / 06 dated 9/1 2006 Was provided, which had an effect from before 8. Further tax was paid in compliance with the 2004 audit report and the liability created thereafter was not relevant. The showcase notice should have been issued within 90 days or 180 days as it created a liability against a certificate. The Constitution Collector (Appeal) held that the showcase did not challenge the sales tax formula / work as stated in the showcase notice. That under Section RO 488 (I) / 04 dated 12 6 2004, the complainant did not have the power to adjust the input against the electricity bills as he had provided oil to the unregistered person. That the complainant was required to provide solid evidence that he supplied the registered person with oil which he failed to do. This audit inspection decision was a decision / decision not correct because the audit report was auditor's observation, which was required by the seniors to be approved and the audit report was not a decision or decision under section 45 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. That m best law firm from Rangoo lawyer