| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 287 2013 SLD 287 2013 PTD 304 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.As. Nos. 907/LB to 913/LB and M.As. (Stay) Nos. 814/LB to 820/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12th September 2012
NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos. 814 to 820 of 2012). Mrs. Naheed Rakho, D.R, for
Respondent (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB. to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos.814 to 820 of 2012)
S.T.As. Nos. 907/LB to 913/LB and M.As. (Stay) Nos. 814/LB to 820/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12th September 2012
NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos. 814 to 820 of 2012). Mrs. Naheed Rakho, D.R, for
Respondent (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB. to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos.814 to 820 of 2012)
Messrs DECENT TEXTILE, FAISALABAD
VS
C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 45,45B
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S.45-B---Appeal---Miscellaneous application for grant of stay, rejection of---During pendency of first appeal, registered person filed application for grant of stay against recovery of tax demand, which was refused---Taxpayer contended that while rejecting stay application, First Appellate Authority had failed to pass a speaking order; and taxpayer had a prima facie arguable case with every likelihood of success and balance of convenience also leaned in its favour; and if the department was not restrained from recovery of the disputed amount, same will cause irreparable loss; and findings of First Appellate Authority were devoid of any plausible reason---Revenue contended that First Appellate Authority was competent to reject such applications without assigning any reason---Validity---Registered person deserved relief as applied for---Orders for all the periods were vacated and department was restrained from recovery of disputed tax demand for a period of 30 days or decision of appeal by the First Appellate Authority, whichever was earlier---First Appellate Authority was directed to preferably decide the pending appeals at the earliest---Appeals of the Registered Person having been disposed of and department having been restrained from recovery of tax demand, miscellaneous applications seeking stay against recovery of tax demand also became infructuous. PLD 2003 SC 344; 2005 PTD 165; 1996 CLC 507; 2006 PTD 670; 2003 PTD 1664; 2008 PTD 1; 2002 PTD 679; 1991 PTD 872 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 941 ref. ORDER The above titled miscellaneous applications seeking grant of stay against recovery of tax demand as well as appeals against the order of Commissioner IR (Appeals), Faisalabad dated 3-7-2012 have been filed at the instant of the registered person. The representatives on behalf of rival parties are present. Hence, the same are disposed off as under. 2. We take up the appeals of the registered person first, whereby the refusal of stay against recovery of tax demand has been agitated. 3. The facts in brief leading to the instant appeals are that order-in-original in the case in hand for the period under consideration were passed by…
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