MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN
Section 10 (4), 3, 7 and 73 Sales Tax Withdrawal Rules, 2002, 4, 8 (1) and 9 Input Tax Objection Return Limitations Taxpayers claim that the judicial authority issued notice to the showcase two years later. But in accordance with R. 8 (1) of the Refund Rules, 2002 (8), it was required to raise an objection within 14 days in connection with the claim. And the showcase notice was banned from time to time because the department failed to comply with the prescribed rules of the law because the rules of law are that if the law provides for the performance of a particular way, To do or not And if anything was done against the rule of law, it would have no legal effect; the legality of the department had failed to deal with conflicts within the stipulated time limit under which the rules could not be escaped and Returns were filed within time. The receipts were fully claimed under the input tax law after which no showcase notice was issued according to the law and the rules of the department issued the showcase notice after a gap of two years. The audit report conflicted with the department. It was illegal to act for such a delay notice and could not get any legal help because the notice of reason was invalid and consequently all its proceedings had no legal effect. The officers' taxpayer orders were set aside below and allowed to be filed by taxpayers through the appellate tribunal. \ R \ n
