ALIF PLASTIC INDUSTRY versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Under section 38 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 of the Investigation Audit under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, which did not constitute a permanent choice for a scope notice audit involving certain charges, was filed against the applicants (taxpayers) section. The notice of inquiry proceedings was canceled. 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was that the department could not select the applicant for audit without completing the first audit under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. Act in contrast to Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, wherein a notice of failure to deal with a particular person's access to the premises was issued only as a preliminary inquiry step by seeking the records and references of section 38. Was. The Sales Tax Act, 1990, gives notice to the applicant that there has been an inquiry or the details of the tax fraud investigation and the nature of the fraud were reported to the notice department, hence the applicant's record. There was a reason to investigate and for that reason, this notice does not violate the section 38 mandate of the Sales Tax Act. The current 1990 case was not a matter of random selection or a comprehensive audit, but issuing my ineligible notice of tax fraud in the presence of a specific charge against the applicant did not mean that the tax fraud case against the applicant. The decision was made and any right of the applicant adversely affected the constitutional application was rejected, in the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
