| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 227 2020 SLD 227 2020 PTD 18 2020 PTCL 180 2019 SCMR 2018 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 1660 and 1661 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 21-01-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 16.05.2012 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Tax Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Saood Nasrullah Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court (in both cases).
Respondent(s) by: Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (in both cases).
Civil Appeals Nos. 1660 and 1661 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 21-01-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 16.05.2012 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Tax Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Saood Nasrullah Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court (in both cases).
Respondent(s) by: Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court (in both cases).
MESSRS ALKHAIR GADOON LTD.
VS
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS
Law: Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)
Section: 3,4,4(1)(2),9,35
Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944
Section: 7,9,210,223(6),294
(a) Taxation--- ----Notice for recovery of tax---Incorrect provision of law mentioned in the notice---Effect---Quoting of wrong provisions of law in a show cause notice would not necessarily vitiate the entire process initiated thereunder---In deciding the legal validity of the show cause notice, it was important to first see whether the recipient/assessee of the said notice had been put to any prejudice in preparing and putting up its defence to the allegations made therein; and whether the issuer of the notice had the authority to issue the same, provided the notice had all the necessary facts leading to the alleged acts or omission of the recipient constituting the stated contravention of provisions of law, and thus, to be meaningfully responded by the assessee. Collector of Sales Tax and CE, Lahore v. Zamindara Paper and Board Mills and others 2007 PTD 1804; Olas Khan v. Chairman NAB PLD 2018 SC 40; Jane Margrete William v. Abdul Hamid Mian 1994 SCMR 1555; Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109 and Safia Bibi v. Aisha Bibi 1982 SCMR 494 ref. (b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--- ----Ss. 4(1), 4(2) & 35---Show cause notice mentioning incorrect provision of law---Mix question of law and facts---Appellate Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Scope---Question as to whether the challenge to the notice made by the appellant-tax payer before the Appellate Tribunal, which had not yet been decided by the Tribunal, should be decided by the Supreme Court, or be left to be decided first by the Appellate Tribunal, where it was originally agitated---Held, that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Tribunal; firstly, for the reason that the said crucial determination would require considering of mixed questions of law and facts, which could best be undertaken by the Appellate Tribunal; secondly, any finding by the Supreme Court or even by the High Court on the said challenge to the very legality of the notices, would surely prejudice the appellant-tax payer by denying it a forum of redressal under the Central Excises Act, 1944; and thirdly and finally, another fundamental issue, raised by the appellant in response to the notices, as to whether…
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