COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN versus MUGHEES TEXTILE, MULTAN
Sections 38, 2 (14), 2 (37), 7 (1), 7 (2) (I), 8 (1) (D), 1021 (2), 25, 26 (1), 33, 36 ( 1)), 37A and 73 Sales Tax Return Rules, 2002 Sales Tax Rules (2004), (2005) and (2006), as per Chapter V General Order No. 2005 dated 12 6 2004, Part III, C, L , Sections 30-30-30 authorized officers to access premises, stocks, accounts and records, alleging that refunds were requested on the basis of invoices issued by suspected / blacklisted units / suppliers. And the refund was erroneously granted because the registered person / appellant had fraudulently claimed the same refund. On the basis of counterfeit purchase receipts, the person claimed that the refund claim was made during the tax period from August 2002 to January 2004 while the units were blacklisted in 2007 while the judgment was approved on October 9, 2007. was done. And there was no violation of any part of the Sales Tax Act 1990 at the time of sale / purchase of goods between registered individual and blacklisted units, which included the validity period contained in the showcase notice related to August, 2002 to January 2004. Was. And during this period the suppliers were operative / suppliers / units were added to the blacklist later in the year 2007, after more than three years. Blacklisting should not be the first appellate authority to operate as an operative, which relies on unconstitutional decisions of the courts. Along with the country, the appellate tribunal also argued well, passed the correct grounds and valid order that no error or error was found in the order, retained the order through the appellate tribunal order r \ n \ r \ n
