Section 10 (4) and 8A Laws of Martyrs (10 of 1984), Article 117 Finance Act (III of 2006) Section R No. 575 (I) / 2002, dated 31 8 2002, RR 2, 4 and 8 Input tax Refund Claims (Sales Tax Automated Refund Repository Computer System (STARR)) Objections with withdrawal of invoices, invoices were not summarized and due to duplicate copy of supplier taxpayers, the claim was filed The ban was given fourteen days' time. It was proposed to issue the notice and on the basis of which the orders were illegal, illegal and without any jurisdiction that it stated that the order traveled beyond the notice and such contradiction. Orders determined on the basis that the suppliers were properly functional and their name appeared on the Federal Board of Revenue's official website list and allegations that suppliers were inactive were based on the assumption that According to Section 8A of the Sales Tax Act 1990, the revenue authorities should issue notices to the taxpayers but not to the suppliers. Was supported, and that the Convention E-Martyrs Order, 1984 placed the duty on the recipients to prove that the invoices issued by the supplier were not fake and genuine on the basis of which the input tax was claimed. had gone. Revenue officials claimed that the refund claims were rejected because the invoice summary was not filed and the suppliers were blocked saying the invoice was issued for a huge sum but a small amount of sales tax tax was left in the state treasury. I was submitted. And that under Section 10 (4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
