KARACHI: The Customs Court supplied copy of the whole case to counsel for accused namely Faisal Mirza, owner of M/s KZ Industries and directed accused and counsel for the customs department for framing charge on next date of hearing, suspect was nominated in first information report (FIR) for commission of tax fraud by obtaining sales tax refund on the strength of fake and flying invoices and false zero-rated supplies without having any manufacturing facility.
On 11 November 2021, customs court had granted bail above mentioned suspect against the surety of Rs300,000 and directed him to make sure his appearance before this court on each and every date of hearing, who was nominated in first information report (FIR) for commission of tax fraud by obtaining sales tax refund on the strength of fake and flying invoices and false zero-rated supplies without having any manufacturing facility.
Counsel for the applicant/ accused argued that his client is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, who is ready to submit surety and will appear each and every date of hearing, therefore, court may grant his bail till final judgment in this case, however, customs for customs department opposed bail application.
After the hearing, the court granted bail to the above-mentioned suspect and directed him to appear before the court on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, investigation officer had submitted that during the investigation, it was established that above mentioned suspect and others registered and unregistered persons who are directly, indirectly, knowingly, dishonestly, fraudulently and without any lawful excuse are the beneficiaries and whose criminal negligence and connivance by any act or caused to do any act, omitted to take any action including the making of supplies and taxable goods without payment of sales tax leviable under sales tax act, 1990, claiming illegal sales tax refunds on the strength of fake/flying invoices, having committed tax fraud as defined under section 2 (37) of the sales tax act, 1990.
He further argued that accused person evaded sales tax amounting to Rs9, 036, 512, therefore, case was registered against them for violated section 2 (2) 2(16) 2(17) 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 22, 23, 26 and 73 of the sales tax act 1990 read with sales tax refund rules, 2006 and punishable under section 33(i) 33(13) of the sales tax act, 1990 and they evaded amounting to Rs. 9, 036, 512 to the national exchequer.
