COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN versus NAEEM CORPORATION, MULTAN
Sections 11, 2 (9) (37); 3, 3 1A, 23, 26, 37 (c), 71, 33, 34 and 36 (1) (2) Section R and 1271 (I) / 96 History 10 11 In 1996, the tax bank account evaluation revealed the name of the factory accountant who received huge sums over the last two years, and found that all the money deposited into the bank account was made of textile mills or cotton lint / cotton waste. Sent by the entire vendors engaged in the business of After passing on the facts to the taxpayers for such facts and examining the relevant records, the First Appellate Authority had alleged that it violated the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, based on a hypothetical speculation. had gone. And the charges listed in the showcase notice could not be established. The account was found to have been accounted for in the search for revenue. In the light of the decision of the department's appeal as of PTD 868 of 2004, the appellate tribunal dismissed it.
