SH. M. IJAZ & COMPANY, LAHORE versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE
Assessment of section 2 (37), 11, 21, 36, 37 C&46 tax tax fraud and tax evasion During the company's blacklisting appellant company audit, the company's tax profile appeared abnormal. The conviction arose that the appellant may have been involved in the issuance of a fake / flying invoice and failed to appear on appeal either personally or through a lawyer despite several notices, but it was originally held that The appellant was involved in issuing a fake / flying invoice. And since there was no physical transaction, the appellant was instructed to pay the full amount of tax incurred in the relevant period along with the additional tax and the fine was also imposed on the dismissal (appeal). The sales tax appellant was represented. It is recorded that some documents were prepared by the appellant, such as sales tax returns, purchase and sales receipts and the purchase registrar stated that the fact of this transaction, however, was that the collector (appellant) filed the transaction documents, Appellant's claim that the appellant's authority was denied was not investigated by the appellant's claim that the appellant's claim for refusal of relief was not investigated as it was substantiated by the appellant. Given that the buyer's name was on the negative list, it was not enough to rule out the transaction. The palette authority is required to verify the documents previously submitted by the appellant; eit can be verified by comparing the documents submitted by the appellant himself or the revenue authority with the appellant's record. Med
