YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS, LAHORE versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, LTU, LAHORE
Sections 3, 6, 7, 11, 26, 34, 35, 36 and 46 determine the tax liabilities, the receipt of a tax levied or a small imposed or incorrectly returned appellant / registered person, in an appeal approved by the collector customs. An appeal was filed against the order. During the audit for the relevant period, the difference in the price of sugar was discovered in the same date and the sales tax was demanded to be against the Sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. , Under which recovery was found. Sections 36 (1), 34 and 35 of the Acting Department Representative defended the impugned order, but the accuracy of the registered person cannot provide any justification for empowering the DRRA with the power to audit the DRR; Joyce and the showcase notice were also kept separate because of the necessary legal justification orders issued under it, as well as the showcase notice, issued by the authorities below, if allowed by the department if required by law. Can perform a new audit of the unit. Anarchy detected, action can be taken against the unit according to law
