Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 620 2020 SLD 620 2020 PTD 666
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No. 991/LB of 2018, decision Dated: 13-05-2019,hearing Date : 15-02-2019
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMAN DR. MUHAMMAD NAEEM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Petitioner(s) by: Zahoor Nasir Tibba
Respondent(s) by: Bilal Qasim, DR (LTU)

M/S ISLAM SOAP INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., SIALKOTVSTHE CIR, LTU, LAHORE

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 2(37),11,25,38,40,72B

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 38, 25 & 11---Authorized officer to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and records---Assessment of tax and recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded---Scope---Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, during the course of raid/investigation, allegedly compelled the appellant to deposit sales tax demand---Assessing authority, after lapse of two years, issued show-cause notice and held that the sales tax recovered during the raid stood adjusted against the appellant's liability as mentioned in investigation audit report---Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) dismissed the appeal being infructuous for the reason that the evasion of sales tax was admitted by the appellant during the course of raid/investigation---Validity---Department had defrauded the whole scheme of law and had recovered the alleged sales tax demand before adopting the procedure as laid down under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Issuance of show-cause notice under S. 11, Sales Tax Act, 1990 was a precondition for the determination of tax liability and a legal mechanism which could not be put at naught---Sales tax was recovered merely on the basis of opinion of raiding/investigating party and that too during the course of investigation---Audit investigation report was issued/signed on 10-09-2015 and it was duly mentioned in the investigation audit report that the appellant had deposited the due sales tax on 03-09-2015 and 09-09-2015---Investigation report revealed that even the audit team prior to completion of audit report had recovered the alleged due sales tax---Appellate Tribunal held that the present case was merely of extortion of money without adhering to the due process of law---Appeal was accepted and the impugned recovery of sales tax was declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 38, 40 & 11---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Authorized Officer to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and records---Assessment of tax and recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded---Searches under warrant---Search to be made in…
🔒
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