FAISALABAD ELECTRIC COMPANY versus C.I.R, ZONE-I, R.T.O., FAISALABAD
Section 7 (1) and 26 (5) Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 Assessment of tax liability Income tax approval of input tax was declared invalid on the basis that the provider (WAPDA) registered The person did not disclose the sale (an electricity distribution company) in his summary to the taxpayers, claiming that the input tax could be disclosed in lieu of one of the six tax periods. That it was mistaken for one month based on the return of suppliers and the registered person, because 7 (seven) months of profit comparison was needed to reconcile the amount announced by suppliers and taxpayers. Will be. The allegation itself was devastating because, if a production company was not able to supply electricity to its customers if it had not been purchased. The taxpayers made the purchase through taxpayers of the National Transmission and Despatch Company and a statement of agreement with the certificate issued by WAPDA in support of such purchases was also filed with the tax official. And this certificate was rejected without validation and with the certificate of reconciliation statement with such certificate, the discretion and defamation revenue claimed that the sale announcement was missing on Wapda's returns, which means the company input tax Is not eligible And this was the correct document to be filed by WAPDA instead of a certificate. Taxpayers couldn't be burdened with tax liability Some of the taxpayers or technical malfunctions were caused by the supplier's dismissal of the tax, all of which were ridiculous and irrational. That if the taxpayers rang
