Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 2(37),3,3B,4,4(c),7,8,10,10A,11(2),11(3) ,18,19A,23,24,25,33,33(13),34,77

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 18,25

Law: Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)

Section: 64-A

THIS ORDER PASSED BY: QAMAR UL HAQ BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:---.--- The titled appeal has been filed by the appellant/taxpayer against Order No. 19/1714 dated 31.10.2016 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals III), Lahore. 2. Briefly, stated the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of Bi cycle and claimed sales tax refunds, during the period July-2011 to June-2013, under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 declaring their supplies as zero-rated in terms of Sr. No. 4(XXVII) Bicycle PCT 87.12 under SRO 549(I)/2008 dated 11.06.2008 issued under the powers conferred by clause (c) of section 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. During the said period the Appellant claimed refund of Rs. 20,426,786/- out of which an amount of Rs. 11,058,000/-was sanctioned and remaining amount of refund of Rs. 9,368,786/- is pending with the department. Relying on the judgment of Honorable ATIR titled as M/s Season Foods (Pvt.) Limited in STA No. 314/LB/14 dated 16.10.2014, the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, Audit-3, Zone-VIII, RTO-II, Lahore vide Assessment Order No. 16/2016 dated 31.05.2016 held that the appellant obtained inadmissible sales tax refund of Rs. 11,058,000/- and rejected the remaining / pending refund claim of Rs.9,368,786/- along-with default surcharge u/s 34 besides imposition of penalty of 100% of tax involved u/s 33(13) for committing tax fraud defined u/s 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in terms of section 11(2) & (3) the Act ibid. The Learned CIR (Appeal-III) vide Order dated 31.10.2016 upheld the assessment made by the DCIR. The appellant dissatisfied with the treatment meted by the learned CIR (Appeal-III) filed the instant appeal. The appellant impugns order of the first appellate authority on following factual and legal arguments during the course of hearing: That the order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Appeal-III), Lahore is bad in law and against facts of the case. 2. The act of the respondent is in shear violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, especially in terms of Article 4, 10A, 18, 19 A, 23, 24, 25 & 77 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned…

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