| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1258 2016 SLD 1258 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
STA No. 349/LB/2016, Date of hearing: 25.05.2016 Date of order: 14.06.2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. M. Farooq Sheikh, Advocate
Respondent by: Mrs. Fouzia Adil, D.R. (RTO)
STA No. 349/LB/2016, Date of hearing: 25.05.2016 Date of order: 14.06.2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. M. Farooq Sheikh, Advocate
Respondent by: Mrs. Fouzia Adil, D.R. (RTO)
M/s. Pacific Enterprises, 17-Mcleaod Road, Behind Ashraf Plaza, Lahore ..... --Appellant
VS
CIR, R.T.O, Lahore ..... --Respondent
Law:
Section:
THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER:---------------- This appeal has been filed by the registered person against the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 recorded by the learned CIR(Appeals-II), Lahore, wherein maintenance of order in original has been challenged. 2. Succinctly particulars of the case are that as per information received by the department that the registered person claimed input tax adjustment of Rs.253,049/-on the strength of invoices issued by the black listed/suspended suppliers which were inadmissible under the law. The adjudicating officer issued show cause notice u/s 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 to the registered person to explain as to why sales tax amounting to Rs.253,049/-should not be recovered from him alongwith default surcharge and penalty but uncomplied with. The adjudicating officer therefore, passed order in original with the direction to the registered person to pay sales tax amounting to Rs.253,040/-alongwith default surcharge and penalty u/s 33(13) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 equal to 100% of the sales tax amount involved also imposed upon to the registered person. In appeal, the learned CIR(Appeals) upheld the treatment meted out by the adjudicating officer for the reasons and factors as embodied in the impugned order. This has brought the registered person in further appeal before this forum. 3. The learned AR has vehemently argued that the order u/s 45-B passed by learned CIR(Appeals) & u/s 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 passed by the learned adjudicating officer are illegal, unlawful as the show cause notice issued by the adjudicating officer was barred by time in terms of section 11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 being issued after the expiry of five years. Therefore, the completion of assessment is hit by limitation and not maintainable in the eyes of law. He therefore, prays for vacation of the same by accepting the appeal of the registered person. 4. On the other hand the learned DR supported the orders of both the authorities below and has stated that the arguments advanced by the learned AR has found to be general in nature as the sufficient opportunities of being heard provided to the…
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