| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 244 2016 SLD 244 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
STA No. 70(IB)/2014, Order & hearing Date : 24-02-2016
JAVED IQBAL, CHAIRMAN MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Ch. Naeem ul Haq, Advocate
Respondent by: Mr. Shafqat Mehmood, DR
STA No. 70(IB)/2014, Order & hearing Date : 24-02-2016
JAVED IQBAL, CHAIRMAN MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Ch. Naeem ul Haq, Advocate
Respondent by: Mr. Shafqat Mehmood, DR
M/S TEHZEEB FOOD & DESIGN CAFE, ISLAMABAD
VS
CIR, RTO, ISLAMABAD
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 11(2),34,72B
ORDER This appeal has been filed against order No ST 429/2014 dated 04.12.2014 passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Islamabad on the following grounds. GROUNDS 1. That both the order of learned Inland Revenue officer Audit Regional Tax Office Islamabad as well as order of Commissioner (A) is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the impugned show-cause notice and orders passed by the lower forum are bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That annual sales have been worked out on a self devised and self concocted formula in a mechanical fashion which is not admissible under the law for the reason that a subject cannot be burdened with the liability of tax on whims, surmises, estimations and conjecture. 4. That sales tax is an indirect tax with its ultimate impact on the consumer, therefore, liabilities under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 cannot be worked out in a fanciful manner based on mere surmises, estimates and conjectures and by adopting self devised formulas having no legal support. 5. That the order was without jurisdiction. 6. That the STRN duly allotted by the authorities is a unique identification number which differentiate the taxpayers from each other. As every case is altogether different from the other having different scenarios. Since the spot audit was marked of another unit having STRN 2600367924216, while the STRN of appellant is 2600362772918. The whole basis becomes fishy in the given circumstances. 7. That the departmental team have no authorization to conduct the monitoring of appellant. 8. That the learned CIR(A) was not justified that both the STRN are of one and the same party and considering it an afterthought is also unjustified because your appellant not only made a rent agreement, got the name registered in our name, renovated the business premises afresh. 9. That the CIR(A) was not justified in observing that element of wrong monitoring was not taken up at the time of adjudication because this issue was properly taken up at both the occasions and this fact is also recorded in ONO under contest. 10. The learned IRAQ has himself admitted in the previous ONOβ¦
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