| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1291 2019 SLD 1291 2019 SCMR 906 2019 PTD 1299 2019 PTCL 453 (2019) 120 TAX 22 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 94 of 2012 and 243 of 2013, decision & hearing 11-02-2019. (On appeal from the order Dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No. 412 of 2001 and T.R. No. 2 of 2006)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Imtiaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Shaikh, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 94 of 2012).
Respondent(s) by: Isaac Ali Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 243 of 2013). Dr. Fa
Civil Appeals Nos. 94 of 2012 and 243 of 2013, decision & hearing 11-02-2019. (On appeal from the order Dated 29.9.2011 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No. 412 of 2001 and T.R. No. 2 of 2006)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Imtiaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Shaikh, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 94 of 2012).
Respondent(s) by: Isaac Ali Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record (in C.A. 243 of 2013). Dr. Fa
PAKISTAN MATCH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS
VS
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE MARDAN AND OTHERS
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 13,13(1),47
(a) Interpretation of statutes--- ----'Proviso'---Meaning and scope---Provisos were intended to qualify the main part of the provision and carve out an exception from the same, taking out (as it were) something that but for the proviso would be included therein---Such provisos were generally referred to as "true" provisos---Sometimes a proviso was construed to be a substantive clause that operated in its own right, however, such instances were rare, and for a proviso to be so construed the language of the provision must be clear. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 13(1)---S.R.O. 77(I)/95 dated 19-01-1995 ("SRO 77"), as amended by S.R.O. 87(I)/96 dated 30-01-1996---Exemption from sales tax---'Proviso', interpretation of---First proviso to 'SRO 77' provided that exemption (from sales tax) shall be available to only such industrial units which had opened letters of credit for the import of plant and machinery upto the 31st January, 1996---Question was whether the exemption was limited only to those industrial units that were set up with imported plant and machinery, or was it also available to those set up with plant and machinery that was locally manufactured---Held, that a reading of SRO 77 made it clear that the main paragraph thereof, when read on its own and without taking the first proviso into account, would apply to all industrial units otherwise within the scope thereof, i.e., without any reference to whether the plant and machinery were locally manufactured or imported---First proviso to SRO 77 was only a "true" proviso and not a substantive clause operating in its own right; it carved out an exception, and nothing more---First proviso was not intended to operate, as affecting the whole of the field covered by the main paragraph, and altering and limiting it (to only those industrial units that were set up with imported plant and machinery)---Appeal was disposed of accordingly. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal statute---Exemption from tax---Where two reasonable interpretations of an exemption were possible, the one against the taxpayer and in favour of the revenue would be adopted. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Fiscal…
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