Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 64 2013 SLD 64 2013 PTCL 184 2013 PTD 1371
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A(Rect) No. 71/KB/2011 In MA(Stay) No. 69/KB/2011, decision dated: 21st June, 2011
MR., JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ZARINA N ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Malik Waqas Nawaz, D.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Naseem for
Respondent

C.I.R., Zone-IV, L.T.U., KARACHI

VS

Messrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL LIMITED, KARACHI

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 131,131(5)

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 46(2)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-----S. 131(5), proviso---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.46 (2)---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Stay of recovery---Limitation---Departmental Representative contended that Tribunal could grant stay against recovery of tax demand for a period of one hundred and eighty days in aggregate, whereas in the present case one hundred and eighty days had expired and no further stay could be allowed; and that stay order had been allowed without mentioning any period which was against the provisions of law---Taxpayer contended that Tribunal (Accountant Member) confirmed the order of adjudicating authority on three issues while on the fourth issue order-in-original had been set aside by way of remand order; that in contrast Tribunal (Judicial Member) vacated the order on the first three issues and on fourth issue agreed with the Accountant Member; that even if the order of the Accountant Member was taken, there could be no demand arising out of the adjudicating order; that at least on one issue the order had been set aside by way of remand and in the light of view of Judicial Member all of the issues involved had been proposed to be set aside; that rectification application was not maintainable as no demand in law existed which the department was threatening to be recovered; and that rectification application be rejected---Validity---Case of the taxpayer was pending before Appellate Tribunal for no fault of the taxpayer but due to the reason that the final order could not be passed on account of difference of opinion among the Judicial and Accountant Member and the matter was still pending for appointing the referee Member---Both the Members had set aside the matter for fresh consideration on the specific issues, meaning thereby that no demand in law existed and no recovery could be made by the department---Appellate Tribunal directed the department that no coercive action be taken against the taxpayer---Order of Appellate Tribunal was upheld and application filed by the department was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. ORDER The Department through this appeal has requested for the rectification in the order passed by this Tribunal dated…
🔒
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