C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD versus UMER ABDULLAH TEXTILES, FAISALABAD
Sections 2 (37), 2 (14), 4, 7, 8, 8A, 10, 11 (2), 21, 22, 26, 34, 36 (1) and 73 are eligible for tax fraud refunds. The payment was declared on the basis that the invoices were issued by a supplier who later blacklisted the appellate authority that it was observed that the blacklisting order had no legal effect and that He is no longer in the field and his service cannot be pressurized due to the denial of input on the invoices issued by him. Refunds were issued based on receipts issued by the supplier; and the supplier. And the taxpayers provided relevant records and documentation to prove that a refund claim is otherwise acceptable, and Revenue, in turn, claimed that once the supplier was blacklisted it continued in the past. All receipts made are rejected and recovered from the registrants to whom such payment was made by the taxpayers claiming that the appellate tribunal had already restored the supplier's status as active And blacklisting orders have been cleared. And also submitted a copy of the audit report which recommended deletion of the supplier's hit list from the supplier's name, where taxpayers had no unusual departmental appeal, the Appellate Tribunal had previously The appellate authority's order was upheld.
