| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 278 2017 SLD 278 = 2017 PTD 113 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No. 490/LB of 2013, decision & hearing Date :04-04-2014
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant.Jamsheed Fakhri, D.R. for
Respondents.
S.T.A. No. 490/LB of 2013, decision & hearing Date :04-04-2014
JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant.Jamsheed Fakhri, D.R. for
Respondents.
MESSRS KAMAL LIMITED, KHURRIANWALA, FAISALABADVS.C.I.R.(A), FAISALABAD AND OTHERS
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(14),2(14)(a),2(44),7,8,8A,11(1),11(2), 11(3),14,21(3),23,25(3),33,33(11)(c),34, 36,45,46,73,73(3)
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)------.----- ------.-------Ss. 11(3), 36 & 46------.-----Assessment of tax------.-----Recovery of tax, not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded------.-----Appellant/company was manufacturer-cum-exporter and was engaged in making of zero-rated supplies of textiles and textile articles thereof------.-----Department, while conducting post audit of the appellant refund files for the months from August-2010 to June 2012, observed that appellant had illegally claimed/received refund of input tax; on the strength of invoices issued by a company, whose registration was suspended and subsequently was blacklisted------.-----Show-cause notice for recovery of already refunded amount of sales tax, was issued to appellant, asking to pay back the amount of tax under S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; which was allegedly inadmissibly sanctioned------.-----Impugned show-cause notice and adjudication pertaining to the tax periods from August 2010 to June 2012, were illegal and without jurisdiction, because amendment in S.11(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 took effect from 1st July, 2012; would not be applicable to cases, where the default had been committed in the tax periods prior to that amendment------.-----Law applicable in the matter was provisions of S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, when amount of tax was refunded and not as it stood during the period when show-cause notice and adjudicating order, was issued at belated stage------.-----By deletion of S.36 and insertion of S.11(3) to Sales Tax Act, 1990, without its any retrospective application and saving clause for protection of recovery cases under S.36 for the period prior to that insertion, there remained a statutory gap for the cases of recovery where amount of refund was erroneously or illegally sanctioned prior to 1st July, 2012------.-----In the present case, department had invoked the provisions of newly inserted S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; which was applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and even no saving clause for protection of such omitted provision as contained in S.36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was given, therein------.-----Right of law existing on…