Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 176 2011 SLD 176 (2011) 103 TAX 332 2011 PTD 808
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No.1197/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-10-2010
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant AND Muhammad Asif Hashmi for
Respondent

Messrs PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), LAHOREvsC.I.R., LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, LAHORE and 2 others

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 45,45B(3),8(1))d),8A,25(1),3,26,11

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 45B (3)---Appeal---Remand of case for de novo consideration---Case was sent back for reappraisal of facts and fresh determination of demand by the First Appellate Authority---Validity---Present was a case of remand for de novo consideration of demand which was not found to be sustainable by the First Appellate Authority---In view of mandatory prohibition contained in S.45B(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 from remanding the case for de novo consideration, such remand order was manifestly without jurisdiction---Even otherwise, there was no justification for remand of case and shifting the burden of proof to show that the transactions referred to in show-cause notice were chargeable to Sales Tax from Revenue on to the taxpayer which was violative of the authoritative rulings by hierarchy of the courts---Besides, remand would indirectly nullify the prescribed limitations provided under the law and as such remand for de novo consideration was not only unlawful but also unjustified as de nova consideration of the remanded issues would entail cumbersome rounds of litigation on questions of law not open to two opinions---Since show-cause notice spelled out no allegation and details of primary facts which were sine qua non to attract the charge, there was no justification to prolong, protracted litigation at the cost and inconvenience of the taxpayer, particularly when the statutory provisions had expressly prohibited such remand---First Appellate Authority acted illegally in remanding the case for de novo consideration. Abdul Rauf and others v. Abdul Hameed Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 671; 1991 SCMR 2374 = 1991 PTD 999; 1996 SCMR 1470; 2008 PTD 1563; 2004 PTD 868; 2005 PTD 480 (SC Pak.); PLD 1989 Lah. 47; 1992 SCMR 1898; 1992 SCMR 710; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2026; 1987 SCMR 571; 2008 PTD (Trib.) 541; PLD 1989 Lah. 47; Black's Law Dictionaky; 1993 PTD 332 (Lah. HC) and 2005 SCMR 1713 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 3---Scope of tax---Levy of sales tax on supply of fixed assets--Validity---Show-cause notice did neither specify the fixed assets allegedly supplied nor the time of supply---Taxpayer explained that it was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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