| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1322 2016 SLD 1322 2016 PTCL 622 2017 PTD 846 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
S.T.A. No. 820/LB/2013, decided on 23rd February, 2016.
CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Appellant by: Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman Siddiqui, (D.R).
Respondent by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate alongwith Mr.
S.T.A. No. 820/LB/2013, decided on 23rd February, 2016.
CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Appellant by: Mr. Shafiq-ur-Rehman Siddiqui, (D.R).
Respondent by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate alongwith Mr.
CIR (Zone-II), R.T.O., Faisalabad.
VS
M/s. Chawala Enterprises, Faisalabad.
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 3,3(3)(a),7,10,11(3),21,46,73
SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (VII OF 1990) Sections 3 & 73 Liability to pay sales tax is on the supplier under section 3(3)(a) which is independent to the provisions of section 73 and in cases of delayed payments, no revenue loss is involved particularly when the supplier has already paid output tax to the government therefore, demanding refunded amount of input tax back from the buyer despite having it deposited by the supplier in the national exchequer would definitely amount to double taxation not permissible under law --- Suffice it to say, liability to pay sales tax is on the supplier under section 3(3)(a) of the Act which is independent to the provisions of section 73 of the Act as the supplier has to make payment of sales tax at time of filing of sales tax return for a tax period and sales tax has to be paid even in cases of credit transaction as well. It is established beyond any shadow of doubt that deposit of sales tax is independent to that payment under section 73 of the Act hence, in cases of delayed payments, no revenue loss is involved particularly when the supplier has already paid output tax to the government- therefore, demanding refunded amount of input tax back from the buyer despite having it deposited by the supplier in the national exchequer would definitely amount to double taxation not permissible under any law of the land. Sections 7, 10 & 21 Subsequent blacklisting will not disentitle the buyer from his lawful right of input tax in respect of invoices issued when the supplier was a registered and active person unless those invoices are specifically declared fake and have direct nexus with blacklisting -- We are therefore of the firm opinion that subsequent blacklisting will not disentitle the buyer from his lawful right of input tax in respect of invoices issued when the supplier was a registered and active person unless those invoices are specifically declared fake and have direct nexus with blacklisting and admittedly, the invoices in question had no direct nexus with the subsequent blacklisting of the alleged suppliers. Sections 7, 10 & 73 Acts of inadvertence on the part of assessee due to any procedural mistake would not…
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