C.I.R., ZONE-III, LTU versus BROTHER SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE
Section 11, 66 and 45B tax assessments The claim for refund of further taxpayers' money was rejected on the basis that the taxpayer had passed in the event, so the taxpayer could prove that It was unsuccessful that the tax was not paid to the consumers. Just because there was no further tax on the invoice did not prove that these incidents did not pass on to consumers. Taxpayers said it did not increase the sale price of sugar after further taxation and the same price of the product. Sales are continuing at the same price. Since this was being sold before further taxation, therefore, the question of the amount of additional tax payable to consumers does not arise. And that selling the same price before and after taxing the excess tax was the definitive proof that the taxpayer neither received any further tax nor received money from his customers, when the department took over in July. Had allowed a refund for the period from. On the basis of taxpayer records from 1998 to June 1999, there was no legal reason for canceling the refund for the period from July 1999, for which the taxpayers retained the record for the period 1998. 99 Opinion was such a change not sustainable under the law Taxpayers did not receive any further tax from their buyers and after applying further tax, the sale price of sugar was not changed and the taxpayers applied more tax. After the sale of sugar did not increase the price, it was to continue selling. Product at the same price that they sell before taxing more
