| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1113 2016 SLD 1113 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
NEW STA No. 452/LB/2013, Date of hearing: 03-06-2016 & Date of order 03-06-2016
CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Ahsan Mehmood, Adv.
Respondent by: Ms. Bushra Fatima, DR
NEW STA No. 452/LB/2013, Date of hearing: 03-06-2016 & Date of order 03-06-2016
CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Ahsan Mehmood, Adv.
Respondent by: Ms. Bushra Fatima, DR
M/s Ejaz Spinnng Mills Limited, Lahore.....--Appellant
VS
CIR, Zoned, LTU, Lahore.......--Respondent
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 73
ORDER CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ (Judicial Member) The titled sales tax appeal has been preferred at the instance of registered person, calling in question the impugned orderun-appeai No 04 dated 24 04.2013, passed by the learned CIR (A). Lahore 2. The relevant facts are that during the course of post refund audit proceedings for the period relevant to August 2010 it was found that the registered person had not fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 as it had made late payments to its supplier namely M/s Man Diesel Pakistan Limited Accordingly, input tax amounting to Rs 357,000/- was found inadmissible and impugned assessment order dated 13-08-2012 was passed whereby said amount was ordered to be recovered alongwith default surcharge and penalty The appellant preferred appeal before the learned CIR(A) who after considering the submission of the AR, rejected the same vide order dated 24-04-2013. 3. It is the submission of the learned AR before me that the assessing authority was not justified to disallow the Claim of input tax amounting to Rs.357,000/- by ignoring the binding precedents of superior courts It is submitted by him that the registered person made payment to its supplier through banking channel as per requirement of section 73 of the Sales fax Act 1990 and this fact was also admitted by the department but due to financial problem, payment was made beyond 180 days (late by 34 day) It is contended by the AR that FBR vide order No 17-06 dated 17.04.2006, in re: United Textile Printing industries, Faisalabad, has condoned the such delay on the ground that it was a procedural omission, no revenue loss to national exchequer and even it does not carry any adverse revenue implications It is therefore, contended that delay in making payment beyond 180 days is not contumacious but due to certain financial problems entailing no revenue loss hence, this procedural omission is liable to be condoned To support his arguments, the learned AR relied upon the decision of this Tribunal…
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