Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 817 2017 SLD 817 2017 PTD 941
Sindh High Court
Spl. S.T.R.A. No. 26 and C.M.As. Nos. 236 and 237 of 2013, decided on 13th January, 2017.
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE, ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Ammar Yasser for Applicant. Sarfaraz Ali Metlo for
Respondent No.1.

MESSRS JFK INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR

VS

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-I AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 36,36(3),47,46,57

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 196

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 136

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990 -Ss. 47 & 46-Appeal/Reference to the High Court-Nature and scope-Bar to adjudication under S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 on questions of law not raised before Appellate Tribunal-Effect-While exercising jurisdiction under S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; the High Court exercised a limited jurisdiction only to the extent of examination of such questions of law which arose and had been decided by the Appellate Tribunal-Questions raised for the first time before High Court, which were neither raised nor had been decided by the Appellate Tribunal, could not be decided by the High Court in its jurisdiction under S. 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE:---.--- Through instant reference application, the applicant department has proposed following questions, which according to learned counsel for the applicant, are questions of law, arising from the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Pakistan), Karachi in S.T.A. No. 153/KB/ 2011:- i) Whether an order passed under section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by the Commissioner Appeal RTO, can be assailed before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue under the Provision of section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?, ii) Whether Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue can set aside an Order of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeal), against which no appeal has been preferred with the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue by Respondent No. 1? iii) Whether the order of the Respondent No. 3 passes the test of judicial scrutiny or it is fraud in law? 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal was not justified to entertain and decide an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), while deciding a rectification application under section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as no appeal could be filed against an order passed under section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It has been argued that impugned order may be set-aside and the questions proposed may be answered in favour of the applicant. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection as to the maintainability…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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