Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 417 2013 SLD 417 2013 PDS 1787
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No. 316/LB/2013, DATE of order 30.04.2013
CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by Mr. Zahid Ateeq Ch., Advocate.

M/S. LUCKY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE.

VS

THE CIR (LEGAL DIVISION), Zone-II, RTO-I, LHR.

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 33,73

[Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)].........Sections 33, 73,, Audit, selected for,.. Discrepancies were found,. Show-cause Notice,, Order-in-Original,.. Sales Tax, S.E.D. along with default surcharge, Recovery of ,, Penalty,, Appeal before firstly appellate authority, rejected, hence the instant appeal,.. Issue of Suppression of sale of wastage and SED was involved, tax-payer contended that he used P.V.C. and petrochemicals in the manufacturing raw material and said raw materials are usually evaporated and vanished up to 1% during industrial process, the said assertion has been acceptable in the line of business all along, the registered person during the tax period under appeal had manufactured 2500 Metric Tons of goods, therefore, wastage claimed by the appellant was allowable and action of the adjudicating officer was unsustainable, in support of this contention a letter from IOCO (Federal Government Agency) certifying that 1% to 4.25% wastage in the industrial process is occurred was also produced before the authorities below, the learned CIR(A) had tried to give another angle by holding that issue in question involved is to the chargeability of sales tax on wastage of sales and not the extent of waste sale,.. In view of the Tribunal this charge was not established and therefore, impugned order on this issue was annulled and the tax was deleted,.. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990),, Sections 73, 33,, Audit, selected for,.. Discrepancies were found,. Show-cause Notice,, Order-in-Original,.. Sales Tax, S.E.D. along with default surcharge, Recovery of ,, Penalty,, Issue of inadmissible adjustment of sales tax and SED was involved,, The appellant pointed out that when the appellant had produced copy of the pay order along with ledger confirming payment to his supplier M/s. Engro Polymer Chemicals Ltd., there was no justification to charge tax on this issue, the learned CIR(A) had erred in law by rejecting the contention holding that payment through pay order is against the condition laid down under Section 73, Sales Tax Act, 1990, a genuine buyer could not be disentitled to claim credit of input tax on account of mere non-adherence to the provisions of Section 73 and…
🔒
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