COTTON ARTS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD
Sections 2 (14), 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 46 Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R37 Refund Claim Claim for Refund Claim Assessment of Input Tax Against Zero-Rated Supply As of March 2005 Claim claimed. After both the Adjustment Officer and the Collector (Appeal) were rejected under the STARR system, the SC filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal, Sales Tax Refund Rules, no concept of STARR in 2002, but for the first time in the rule STARR Term was introduced. , The rules that came into force from July 1, 2004, the rules, the application date for refunds in 2004 and 2005, were not reported by the Federal Board of Revenue until sales tax refund rolls, 2002 was not returned by the applicable 5 2006 2006 2006 notification. Wef 1 7 2005 Since the sales tax return rules, 2004 and rules, the provisions of Chapter VI on refunds were not implemented in 2005, and the sales tax refund rules did not apply until 2002, 30 6 2006. However, the retraction claim was rejected. The objections raised by the STARR were found to be illegal against receipts issued prior to 1 7 2006 and without any legal jurisdiction, the term STARR had no legal support in the Sales Tax Act, 1990 It was supported by any legislative process to rely on the objections raised by the STARR to reject the claim for a refund of the Bonus Profit from the Sales Tax Department, whatever the charges on the invoices of their registered suppliers. Without taking independent evidence against them, illegal showcases were taken into account and illegal orders were taken. And was separated
