Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. 14/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH JUNE, 2002. versus APPEAL NO. 14/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 24TH JUNE, 2002.

Non-deferred refund or input tax based on the report prepared after the special audit of the Chartered Accountants of the Sales Tax Act, Sections 2 (37), 23, 32A, 33 (4), 34 and 46 of the tax. Adjustment appeals received. Tax frauds were compiled, and they were instructed to purchase yarn from various sellers / suppliers during the relevant periods to pay 30% of sales tax, along with additional taxes and penalties, plus tax and penalties. So that they can be transformed into clothes and exported. Domestic use, but according to the audited report, they never brought an ounce of yarn to their manufacturing unit and elsewhere so that they could not meet their own yarn preparation for the manufacture of garments. They can prove the seller actually paid the price through a reliable mode. Payment by banks and other financial institutions alone was sufficient to conclude that no genuine transaction of sale and purchase of yarn was ever taken. Applicants and suppliers, and the latter issued toll invoices formerly known as "flying invoices" at lower than their face value, which the appellant later taxed from the department. Used to receive the full amount. , They fraudulently used them as a huge profit-making tool and were cleared by the relevant staff / officers to verify the inquiry and pay their inventory tax claims, No authenticity or authenticity will be given to them, either because they have asked for the same routine top civil advocates from Naukot lawyer