| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1055 2017 SLD 1055 2017 PTD 1402 (2018) 118 TAX 17 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2017, decided on 27th February, 2017
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE
Waheed Shahzad Butt for Petitioner. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for
Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2017, decided on 27th February, 2017
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE
Waheed Shahzad Butt for Petitioner. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for
Respondents
NAZIR AHMAD
VS
THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 45,74
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 24-A
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)- -Ss. 74 & 45-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A- Adjudication of claims by Sales Tax authorities-Statutory limitation- Condonation- "Speaking order"-Scope-Petitioner/taxpayer impugned order of Commissioner Inland Revenue, whereby its claim for refund was denied on ground that petitioner's/taxpayer's claim was time- barred and delay of each and every day was not explained by taxpayer/ petitioner Validity-Authorities were required to pass reasoned and "speaking orders" under S.24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and impugned order was not a "speaking order"-Impugned order was set aside and Department was directed to decide the matter through a "speaking order"-Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly. Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64; Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Additional Secretary Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance Karachi and others 2009 PTD 1544 and Colony Thai Textile Mills's case PLD 1980 Lah. 377 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 03.11.2016 passed by FBR (respondent No.1). Operative part of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:- "2. It has been observed that the reasons put forth by the RP are occasional happening occurring inadvertently which cannot be construed as justified reasons for such a long delay. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as (1980) 42 Tax 140 (S.C.Pak.) titled Commissioner of Sales Tax, Zone-A, Lahore v. Chenab Textile Mills Ltd. Lahore has held that "where a matter is barred by limitation, each and every day's delay must be explained before it can be condoned". Also the Honourable FTO in Complaint No.326/LHR/ST(71)/627/ 2012 has been pleased to hold that "the delay should not unduly protracted and some plausible explanation should be offered for the delay. In the complainant case, there was considerable delay in approaching the Commissioner, Inland Revenue and then when the delay was not condoned by him, there was a further period of inexplicable, extended delay in approaching FBR for condonation". Reliance is also placed onβ¦
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