HUDA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD versus C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD
Sections 14 (1), 8 and 19 (1) of the Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 3, 6, 7, 11 (6), 22, 23 and 26 STGO No. 03/2004 dated 12 4 2004, para ( i)), CL21 (a) for recovery of unpaid duty or return of defective duty or duty arrears, etc. The taxpayer failed to file a monthly sales tax / federal excise return within the due date, with minimum tax liability fixed and countered in relation to such tax period. In the last twelve months, the taxpayer failed to provide any reasonable cause for delayed payment and delayed filing on the basis of the highest tax payer, including 5% of the taxpayer taxpayer. The default surcharge and penalty was instructed. It was claimed that the powers related to the error in the law to recover the default surcharge and penalty of the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Federal Excise Act 2005 and the provisions of section 11 (6) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 Is Delay in tax payment and delay in filing returns were due to circumstances beyond the control of taxpayers. The taxpayer's default patent was to see the delay under the statutory deadline, and it was acknowledged that he had failed to pay state tax in the state treasury at a fixed date. And also failed to file the required returns within time. The proposed returns were filed under the law and after the issuance of the show cause notice and the payment of taxes was made to a large extent, the Assessment Authority was properly in charge after determining the minimum tax liability.
