Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 2(46),3,6,11,11(2),22,23,26,34,36,36(1), 36(2),47

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32,32(2),32(3),

JUDGMENT Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J:- This is an application by way of reference under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the "Act"), which is directed against Order dated 26-11-2005 passed by the erstwhile Customs, Excise Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (the "Tribunal"), in STA No. 850/LB/2005. 2. The Petitioner holds a licence from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, for marketing and distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) across Pakistan. It conducts marketing under the trade name of "WAK GAS". The Enforcement Collection Wing of the Collectorate of Sales Tax, Lahore, received an information that the Petitioner had also set up a cylinder manufacturing unit and, besides marketing and distribution, it was also engaged in manufacturing and supply of cylinders without payment of sales tax. The Enforcement Wing probed into the matter and collected evidence which confirmed that it had made supplies of cylinders valuing Rs.628,335,961/- during the period 1993 to 1998 and had thus evaded sales tax in the sum of Rs.83,431,572/-. Consequent thereupon, Show Cause Notice dated 30-06-2000 was issued to the Petitioner wherein it was charged with the contravention of Sections 3, 6, 11, 22, 23 and 26 of the Act and was called upon to explain as to why the aforesaid sales tax alongwith additional tax and penalty may not be recovered from it. On 14-11-2000, a corrigendum was issued to add M/s Steel Complex to the proceedings. Further, the above-mentioned figures were revised and the total demand of the sales tax was raised to Rs.186,078,750/- alongwith additional tax and penalty. The provisions which were alleged to have been contravened were re-stated as: "Sections 3, 6, 11 (2), 22, 23, 26, 34 36." The Petitioner contested the Show Cause Notice and denied its liability. The matter was adjudicated and, vide Order-in-Original dated 13-02-2001, the Adjudicating Officer ruled against it. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer for denovo consideration. 3. During the remand proceedings the Adjudication Officer issued second corrigendum…