| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 46 2016 SLD 46 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore
NEW CASELAW STA No. 1028/LB/2012, DATE of hearing : 11.08.2015, DATE of order: 21.01.2016
CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Mansha, FCA.
Respondent by: Mr. Kashif Azhar, D.R.
NEW CASELAW STA No. 1028/LB/2012, DATE of hearing : 11.08.2015, DATE of order: 21.01.2016
CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD RAZA BAQIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Mansha, FCA.
Respondent by: Mr. Kashif Azhar, D.R.
M/s. Infotech (Pvt) Ltd, 12-N, Industrial Area, GulberGll, Lahore--Appellant
VS
The CIR, ZonEll, RTO, Lahore. ...--Respondent
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 72(B)
ORDER CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON (JUDICIAL MEMBER),.The titled appeal preferred at the instance of the registered person is directed against the order in appeal No. 15/2012 dated 03.07.2012 passed by the learned CIR(Appeals-ll), Lahore. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that audit for the tax periods July 2008 to June 2009 was conducted and following discrepancies have been observed:- (i) Non payment of default surcharge for late payments (ii) Inadmissible input tax claimed. (iii) Short payment of sales tax on account of adjustment of tax withheld by withholding agents. (iv) Non Payment of sales tax on the disposal of office equipments. (v) Inadmissible input tax adjustment on account of exempt supplies. (vi) Short payment of sales tax on the basis of conversion rates of US Dollars. (vii) Suppression of supplies. 3. On the basis of above allegations that the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why sales tax amounting to Rs.2,73,78,324/- should not be recovered from him alongwith default surcharge and penalties. The reply furnished by the appellant was considered partly valid and consequently order in original No.211/02 dated 10.02.2012 was passed directing the appellant to pay the principal amount of sales tax of Rs.48,97,814/- alongwith default surcharge and penalties. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred first appeal and the learned CIR(Appeals) deleted the tax demand created on the basis of observations No. 2 and 6 but the action of the adjudicating officer with regard to discrepancies No.1,3,5 was upheld. The appellant still being unsatisfied has come up in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned AR firstly raised a legal objection that the whole proceedings conducted in the instant case are illegal and void ab-initio. To substantiate his contention, he submitted that the audit was conducted without…
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