KAMALIA SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Section 40B Federal Excise Act (VIII of 2005) Section 45 (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application of taxpayers / applicants to the manufacturing premises of Inland Revenue / Federal Board of Revenue (\ FBR \) officers The exercise of powers under posting is section 40B of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and section 45 (2) of the Federal Excise Act 2005; of section 40B of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and of section 45 (2) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 No need for justification and scope show notice before use; taxpayers defy orders of Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue / FBR under Section 40B of Sales Had given. The taxpayer's assertion that the taxpayers, 1990 (2) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, under which Inland Revenue Officers were stationed at the manufacturing premises of the taxpayers, was such that the taxpayer could not be issued a show cause notice. Options were used. ; Therefore, due process was not followed and the principles of natural justice were violated; this word \ Monitor \ meant to be monitored and examined periodically and to understand the FBR monitor. Means understands that the team deployed in the manufacturing premises physically looks at the production, sale and stock. Respondents need to know whether the tax collected was properly collected and therefore the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the Sales Tax Act, to collect data retained by FBR positions and taxpayers. Under 1990, the authority to monitor was to observe and observe and maintain the information maintained by it. Taxpayers produce their daily produce, promotion
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
