| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2040 2013 SLD 2040 2013 PTD 181 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Ex. No.32/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-09-2012
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZUHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Ex. No.32/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-09-2012
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZUHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Messrs SAMSOL INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.,
VS
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Law: Federal Excise Rules, 2005
Section: 45
Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006
Section: 15(5)
[Federal Excise Rules, 2005].........R. 45(5)----Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R. 15(5)---Payment through electronic banking---Scope---Delay in clearing of payment--Deposit of tax after due date---Effect---Return for payment of Excise Duty was filed on 15th November, 2008 along with necessary documents and tax due---Account of the taxpayer was in a Bank which allowed concession and privilege to make payment electronically through direct debit---Tax paid by registered person on 15th November, 2008 through direct debit could not be transferred by the Bank in account of Revenue authorities---Payment of tax was cleared by the Bank on 17th November, 2008---Notice was issued to the taxpayer for delay in making payment of tax and additional lax and penalty was imposed on it--- Validity---Department had not denied that payment of tax was made through electronic banking on 15th November, 2008 i.e. on due date---Payment was deposited in account of Revenue authorities on 17th November, 2008---Payment through direct debit was faster than any other mode, because the transfer of funds reflected immediately in the accounts of payer and recipient---Bank in question was working as agent of Revenue authorities and any payment received by the Bank under R.45(5) of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005 was deemed to have been received by Revenue authorities---When Bank for any reason deposited the collected amount late in the account of Revenue authorities it was a matter between agent/Bank and principle/Revenue authorities---Taxpayer could not be penalized under such circumstances---Payment made through electronic banking (direct debit) by taxpayer was within time---Direct debit, though, not expressly covered under R.45(5) of the Federal Exercise Rules, 2005, yet it sufficiently met the intent and object of rule makers---Principles of 'ejusdem generis' could be employed to construe that payment made through "direct debit" was under the said rule---Orders of authorities below were declared against the spirit of law and were annulled by the Appellate Tribunal. ORDER This appeal filed by registered person is against order bearing C.No. Collr (App)Ex/6/2009/1015 dated 13-7-2009 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