| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 142 2010 SLD 142 2010 PTD 1075 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Sales Tax Appeal No. K-270 of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2009
MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II
Akhtar Ali and Maqsood Ahmad Chartered Accountant for Appellants and Taofeeq Ahmad Sheikh for
Respondent
Sales Tax Appeal No. K-270 of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2009
MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II
Akhtar Ali and Maqsood Ahmad Chartered Accountant for Appellants and Taofeeq Ahmad Sheikh for
Respondent
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 13,3B,13,46,6thSched
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 3-B, 13, 46 & 6th Sched.---Exemption---Collection of excess tax---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Exemption of sales tax was claimed by the appellants in terms of entry No.55 of the 6th Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Assessment was claimed under heading 2924.1000 covered by serial number 55 of 6th schedule and goods were cleared under said heading without payment of sales tax---Subsequently a dispute as to classification of the product arose---Appellant company paid duty under protest and material was sent to Research Institute of Chemistry which confirmed that imported item `carbofuran' was a cyclic amide (cyclic carbamate)---Based on that description, goods were apparently covered by heading 29.24---Department, however took the plea that the goods were classified under heading 29.32---Record showed that a long standing practice of assessing `carbofuran' under heading 29.24 existed before the classification was charged to 29.32---Long standing practice of such charge was deprecated by the higher judicial fora through a number of s on record---Clearance of appellant as well as his competitors were under heading 29.24 till the dispute of classification arose---No recoveries were made from their competitors for past clearances made under heading 29.24---Appellant, in circumstances, was at a disadvantage vis-a-vis its competitors---Two similarly placed persons could not be treated differently---Present was a case of discrimination whereby appellant was treated differently than his competitors---Even otherwise an innocent person paying duty on the goods in a bona fide manner to the satisfaction of the rules was protected from being further harassed---Change of Tariff classification could have prospective effect only and could not be applied on past clearances---Tax was recovered from the appellant under duress and under protest, subject to outcome of adjudication proceedings---Tax could not be imposed discriminately and change of classification retrospectively---Government could not retain the money which was not due to it---Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances. Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492