| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1092 2016 SLD 1092 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
NEW STA No. 437/LB/2016, Date of hearing 22.04.2016, Date of order 23.05.2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Syed Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate.
Respondent by: Mr. Faisal Asghar, DR, (RTO)
NEW STA No. 437/LB/2016, Date of hearing 22.04.2016, Date of order 23.05.2016
MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Syed Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate.
Respondent by: Mr. Faisal Asghar, DR, (RTO)
M/s. Auto Craft, Lahore--Appellant
VS
The CIR, RTO-II, Lahore--Respondent
Law:
Section:
ORDER MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI (Accountant Member). This titled appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant/ taxpayer against Order No.27/1575 dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned CIR(Appeals-III), Lahore. 2. The facts in brief leading to instant appeal are that as per information received from Directorate of Intelligence & Investment-FBR, Lahore, the appellant had claimed inadmissible input tax adjustment amounting to Rs. 75,752,403/-, against invoices issued by blacklisted units, in violation of the provisions of sections 3, 6, 7, 8A, 10, 22, 23, 26 and 73 of the Act. The same was found recoverable. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 18.08.2015 was issued requiring the appellant to explain as to why sales tax amounting to Rs. 75,752,403/- should not be recovered along with default surcharge u/s 34 and penalty u/s 33(13) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. After considering the reply of the appellant, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned order, directing the appellant to pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 66,516,739/- along with default surcharge u/s 34 and penalty equal to 100% of the tax involved u/s 33(11) & 33 (13) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved the taxpayer filed appeal before the CIR(A) who vide impugned order upheld the treatment accorded by the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out by the learned CIR(A) the appellant has come up in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/registered persons contested the orders of the below authorities on legal as well as on factual grounds. The main thrust of the appellant is with regards to the point of limitation. He vehemently argued that the show cause notice was issued on 18.08.2014 whereas the Order-in-Original was passed on 14.01.2016 which was received on 06.02.2016 as is evident from TCS tracking record. He submitted that as per first proviso of section 11(5) of the Act Order-in- Original should be passed within one hundred and twenty days from the date of issuance of show cause notice or within such extended period as Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, fix provided that such extended period shall in no case…
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