DILPASAND HOSIERY, FAISALABAD versus C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD
Section 36 has not been levied or levied in the collection of tax or due to wrongful withdrawal not to refer to the relevant section of the notice section 36, Sales Tax Act 1990. The citation notice was not only false, but also in the eyes of the law, for not referring to subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 36 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, while issuing the article notice. Will have to include the base of And there are very clear and obvious reasons for determining whether the sales tax was collected under section 36 (1) or subsection (2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, while the failure by the authority while issuing a show cause notice. Without mentioning the provisions of Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, its order would be invalid and illegal and the show cause notice presented by the Adjustment Officer to the taxpayers against this Act was clearly in the illegal and Without legal authority, the allegations made under section 36 (1) and (2) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 were also banned and Neither Section (1) nor Subsection (2) of Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act made a deep application in the operative part of the showcase notice in 1990, after which all orders based on it were obliged to be rejected. The notice of justification for the notice must show the notice and consequently the jurisdiction was required by the revenue authorities. This order was not expressly excused by jurisdiction and legal authority by the appellate tribunal
