Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1368 2016 SLD 1368 (2016) 114 TAX 110 2017 PTD 725
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Karachi
STA No. 551/KB of 2015 decided on 12.04.2016, Date of hearing: 12.04.2016
SHAHID PERVEZ MEMON, .JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MANZOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Ajeet Sundar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Iqbal Hussain Sheikh, DR., for the
Respondent.

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 11.11(2),21(2)

Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006

Section: 12

SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (VII of 1990) Sections: 11. 11(2) & 21(2) - Sales Tax Rules, Rule. 12 - De- registration, black listing and suspension of registration - Assessment of tax and recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded - tax fraud - Show Cause Notice - Rejection of refund claim - Recovery of tax - Taxpayer contended that all suppliers were duly active and alive therefore taxpayer cannot be penalized for any past event. He further stated that subsequent blacklisting of supplier could not be made a tool to deprive registered person of a valuable right accrued in his favour for purpose of transactions made prior to suspension of registration of such supplier. He finally contended that order passed by CIR(A) in favour of appellant, when order u/s 11(2) was passed in respect of appellant regarding M/s Sunny (Corporation, which is again made one of the bases of this blacklisting order u/s 21(2) - Validity - (A) The blacklisting is a stop gap arrangement and an order under the relevant section 11 is to be passed and Show Cause for the same should preferably be issued along with Show Cause for blacklisting. (B) Blacklisting order u/s 21(2) was passed in this case on 18.12.2015 and subsequent proceedings u/s 11 under relevant sub-section, if so warranted have not been initiated or if initiated, the same have not been culminated. Here, we are not suggesting that necessarily the proceedings u/s 11 may culminate in creation of same demand. The explanation by any taxpayer maybe acceptable in the eyes of assessing officer referring to law and record. Blacklisting order adversely affecting business affairs of taxpayer cannot be allowed to continue for indefinite period and in this ease almost four months have passed after blacklisting. (C) Order of blacklisting will be considered annulled from date of receipt of this order by Commissioner. Case referred to: 2011 PTD 866. THIS ORDER PASSED BY DR. MANZOOR AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:------------ The instant Sales fax Appeal has been filed by the taxpayer/appellant assailing the Blacklisting Order No. CIR/ZONE-IV/RTO-II/KHI/2015-16/2380, dated 18.12.2015 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland…
🔒
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