| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2517 2018 SLD 2517 2018 PTD 2408 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
M.A. (A.G.) S.T.A, No. 16/IB of 2017 and S.T.A. No. 7/IB of 2009, decision Dated: 12-09-2017, hearing Date : 13-06-2017
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIDN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Umar Rasheed and Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellants. Muhammad Altaf Khan, D.R. for
Respondent.
M.A. (A.G.) S.T.A, No. 16/IB of 2017 and S.T.A. No. 7/IB of 2009, decision Dated: 12-09-2017, hearing Date : 13-06-2017
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MIDN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Umar Rasheed and Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellants. Muhammad Altaf Khan, D.R. for
Respondent.
M/S INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
VS
THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS), SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, ISLAMABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 36(1)(2)
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: 14(1)
(a) Administration of justice- -Legal contentions/submissions/grounds, could be raised at any stage of proceedings before any forum/court, including the Supreme Court. 2006 SCMR 1519; PLD 1965 SC 690; 1997 PTD 1555; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 401; 1976 PTD 56; 1999 PTD (Trib.) 705 and 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1136 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)- -S. 36(1)(2)-Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded-Allegation of collusion or deliberate act- Issuance of show-cause notice-Limitation-Provisions of subsection (1) of S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, had specifically mandated that a show-cause notice was mandatorily to specify the reasons of "some collusion or a deliberate act" for the alleged non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund of sales tax or to charge; whereas in the present case impugned show-cause notice was silent to the effect that registered person/taxpayer had made a collusion with the departmental officials, or the act of non-payment of sales tax was deliberate-Prior to issuance of show-cause notice, it was mandatory on the part of the Additional Collector to establish mens rea against the registered person in the show-cause notice-Department had assumed jurisdiction under S. 36(1) of Sales tax Act, 1990, without establishing specific charge, which was fundamental requirement of law-Issuance of show-cause notice was not maintainable as-Impugned show-cause notice, did not circumscribe the facts and circumstances of the case-Taxpayer's case, in circumstances fell under S. 36(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, as the condition precedent therein existed in the present case-Notice under S. 36(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 could only be issued within a period of 3 years of the relevant date, show-cause notice having been issued beyond the period specified in S. 36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was barred by time-Order-in-original passed on the basis of said show-cause notice was declared to be without lawful authority. 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1759; 1992 SCMR 1898; 2001 SCMR 838; 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1040; 2013 PTD (Trib.) 2130; 2007 PTD 2265; 2013 PTD (Trib.) 420; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 677; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 866; 2008 PTD 1973; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2010 PTD (Trib.)…
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