C.I.R. (LEGAL) R.T.O., FAISALABAD versus KAMAL SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
Sections 10, 21, 36 and 46 of the Input Tax Withdrawal Order were rejected by the first appellate authority with the name that it was cleared of the objection of the examiner to verify the input tax. And the sales tax was an automatic refund repository system. In some other cases the receipt issued by the supplier of the recipient of the taxpayer was verified as the tax on which the taxpayer claimed to be the blacklisted person, supplying the taxpayer any amount against his invoice. Cannot allow return of. The showcase notice was neither contested nor decided in the first appeal order along with the court order. And on the basis of appeals by the department for the first time, such an objection is not only illegal but is beyond the scope and content of the showcase notice, admittedly, the sales tax automated refund deposit system. Already cleared name. The taxpayer's supplier and the taxpayer had allowed other taxpayers to refund the invoice against their invoice, and the taxpayers could not be denied the same treatment for the purpose of checking for input tax verification. , Was not accused of blacklisting in showcase notices. Neither it was decided by the judicial authority or the First Appellate Authority, nor could a refund be dismissed solely on the blacklisting charges, any objection which was put on the show cause notice and Could not be decided in a court order. The appellate tribunal will not be leveled for the first time and the matter will not be settled
