Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 292 2013 SLD 292 (2013) 108 TAX 49 2013 PTD 353
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (Stay) No.116/KB and S.T.A. No.145/KB of 2011, decisiondated: 17-02-2012, hearing DATE : 9-12-2011
SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZARINA M ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Muhammad Naseem for Applicant. Badar-ud-Din Qureshi, Addl. CIR for
Respondent

Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED

VS

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INLAND REVENUE SERVICES) Zone-IV

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 10,3,4(1)(b)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 24,27,131

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----Ss. 10, 3 & 4(1) (b)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 24, 27 & 131---Sales Tax Rules, 2002, R.37---Refund of input tax---Zero-rated exports---Interference in clearance of goods by Inland Revenue Department---Proper clearance of goods by customs authorities---Claim of refund, refusal of---Legality---Taxpayer company contended that supply of petroleum products for consumption abroad to Airlines proceeding to destinations outside Pakistan in terms of S.24 of the Customs Act, 1969 was zero-rated in terms of Ss. 3 and 4(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Official of Inland Revenue seemed to have relied upon non compliance of R.37 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2002 while officers of Customs department had allowed clearance on the basis of S.24 of the Customs Act, 1969---Said rule could not be applied by overlooking the provision of statute and due to its in conflict with the statute it had to give way---Refund claim having already been processed and granted could not have been refused on mere technicalities and procedural lapse---Claim lodged had already been delayed---Approval or non-approval of official of Inland Revenue would have not made a difference since said official could not have exercised any jurisdiction to interfere with the clearance---Appeal filed by taxpayer-company was properly supported by an affidavit to which Inland Revenue Department failed to file reply, or any statement or any counter affidavit---Said department had also not filed any rebuttal to the legal arguments submitted on the orders of Appellate Tribunal, and there was no explanation for such default---Impugned order set aside and Appellate Tribunal held that taxpayer was entitled to the refund as per claim. PLD 1972 SC 271; PLD 1995 Kar. 587; PLD 1997 Lah. 1; 1997 PTD 47; 1980 PTD 406; 1984 PTD 137; 1989 PTD 1010; PTCL 2004 CL 18; 2006 PTD 1644; PLD 1952 Lah. 582; PLD 2000 SC (AJ&K) 20; 2003 CLC 1622; 2009 SCMR 1622; 2010 PTD 465; 2011 PTD 886; Crawford, the Constitution of Statutes; PLD 1972 Lah. 316; PLD 1969 Dacca 451; 1990 PTD 974; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 3810; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 279; 1991 PTD 217; 1991 PTD (Trib.) 226; (1989) 176 ITR 352 Pat.…
🔒
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