| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 48 2016 SLD 48 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
NEW CASELAW M.A (Cond.) No. 17/LB/201 5 STA No. 179/LB/2015, DATE of order & hearing: 26-01-2016
QAMAR-UL-HAQ BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S. Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate Mr. Adnan Ahmad Khan, D.R
NEW CASELAW M.A (Cond.) No. 17/LB/201 5 STA No. 179/LB/2015, DATE of order & hearing: 26-01-2016
QAMAR-UL-HAQ BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD AKHTAR SHAHEEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S. Zulfiqar Ali, Advocate Mr. Adnan Ahmad Khan, D.R
M/s. ALRehman Enterprises, Lahore... --Appellant
VS
CIR, Zone-IV, RTO, Lahore... --Respondent
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(37),33,34
ORDER QAMAR-UL-HAQ BHATTI (JUDICIAL MEMBER): Vide this tax sales appeal, the registered person has assailed the Order No.15- A-ll/2014 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-ll), Lahore dated 13.11.2014. Along with the learned counsel for the registered person also filed miscellaneous application for condonation of delay requesting the bench that the delay in submitting the instant appeal is caused due to unavailability of attested copy of Order-in-Appeal, which is not deliberate at the part of the appellant and is reasonable excuse to condone the time limit. 2 Both the learned representative appearing at the bar have heard and the relevant record perused. 3. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned A.R. before us and also have perused the relevant available records and came to know that the delay in filing the instant appeal by the registered person is not deliberately or attentionally/willingly which is hereby condoned. 4. Now, coming to the main appeal of the registered person, facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that as per the information received by the concerned authority that the appellant during the alleged tax periods had claimed inadmissible adjustment of input tax amounting to Rs.2,913,067/- on account of fake/flying invoices illegal purchases made from the dummy/fictitious suppliers which is recoverable along with default surcharge and penalty. Accordingly, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the alleged sales tax amount stated supra along with default surcharge u/s 34 and penalty u/s 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with section 2(37) ibid should not be recovered from them. Consequently, the adjudication proceedings were culminated in passing of an Order No.43/2014 dated 28.06.2014 with the findings recorded therein. Being aggrieved with this treatment, the registered person/appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Faisalabad who by virtue of his order dated supra upheld the action of the assessing officer. This dispensation had compelled the registered person to prefer appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. 5. The…
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