Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 883 2014 SLD 883 2014 PTD 1293
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (AG) No.67/LB of 2013 and S.T.A. No.121/LB of 2011, decision dated: 11-03-2014, hearing DATE : 04-12-2013.
NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MESSRS SUN TUBE (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE

VS

C.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 11(2),25,25(3),30A,32,36,36(1),36(2),38, 42B

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S.30A---Audit---Jurisdictions---Registered person contended that Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation had travelled beyond its jurisdiction by conducting audit as Federal Board of Revenue had not yet notified through official Gazette the said Directorate under S.30A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which rendered its action as illegal as Gazatted notification was condition precedent for the constitution of the Directorate---Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation could not assume jurisdiction until or unless notified in the official Gazette---Gazette Notification was the mandatory requirement of law, which had not been fulfilled before proceeding for audit---Audit conducted was not legal. Messrs Ibrahim Steel Casting v. CIR(A) S.T.A. No.55/LB/2012; 2013 PTD (Trib.) 1189 and Plum Qingqi (Private) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition No.8695 of 2011 rel. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss.38 & 25---Sales Tax General Order No.3 of 2004 dated 12-6-2004, Paragraph 42(b)---Authorized officers to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and records---Audit of record---Validity---Registered person contended that condition precedent for conducting an audit under S.38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with S.25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was that the person conducting the audit was specifically authorized in that behalf; that approval of the Federal Board of Revenue was never confronted to ascertain the parameters of the authorization of the officers conducting the investigative audit; that as per paragraph No.42(b) of the Sales Tax General Order No.3 of 2004 dated 12-6-2004, the person whose audit was to be conducted should be informed about the audit and the details of the records to be audited at least fifteen (15) days before the scheduled date of audit; that no prescribed notice was issued; that since officers of Directorate had asserted a fact that it had the requisite authorization, as per Art. 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the officers of the Directorate were under burden to prove the fact---Validity---No provision existed for conducting an audit of a taxpayer in S. 38 of the Sales Tax…
🔒
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