Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 75 2020 SLD 75 2020 PTD 54
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Appeal No. AT-61 of 2018, decision Dated: 22-11-2018, hearing Date : 16-11-2018.
JUSTICE (R) NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, CHAIRMAN AGHA KAFEEL BARIK, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Petitioner(s) by: Asif Haroon, FCA, Uzair Memon, ACA and Ms. Motia Badruddin, ACA for Appellant.
Respondent(s) by: S. Rizwan Ali, DC-SRB for
Respondent.

M/S JSN TRADERS, HYDERABAD

VS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SRB, KARACHI

Law: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011

Section: 3,4,24B

Law: Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014

Section: 18,19

(a) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)- -Ss. 3, 4 & 24B, Second Sched.-Supply chain management or distribution (including delivery) services-Taxable service-Economic activity-Compulsory registration-Scope-Appellant was engaged in providing taxable services of distribution of goods-Assessing officer passed order of compulsory registration under S. 24B of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 for the service falling under Tariff Heading 9845.0000 [Supply chain management or distribution (including delivery) services] of the Second Schedule and imposed penalty- Commissioner (Appeals) maintained the order of compulsory registration-Validity-Appellant under an agreement was appointed as a distributor to deliver the products of the manufacturer-Appellant could not exercise full control over the goods and was bound by the instructions of the manufacturer regarding sale, fixation of price and the area in which the goods were to be sold-Appellant, as distributor, used to acquire goods against cash consideration or credit for supplying to the wholesalers or retailers and in that way it supplied goods of its principal against fixed margin-Reading S. 3 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 with Tariff Heading 9845.000 showed that the distribution including delivery service was a "taxable service "-Appeal was dismissed. (b) Interpretation of documents- -Whole document is to be read while construing an instrument and considering its scope and object-One was to look into the substance and not the form to determine the true purpose of the document. Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1996 Kar 68 and Habib Insurance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Karachi PLD 1985 SC 109 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: JUSTICE (R) NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, (CHAIRMAN):---.--- By this common order we intend to decide appeals eighteen in number the details of which are mentioned in Annexure "A" attached with this order filed by various appellants (distributors of Colgate Palmolive) against the Order of their Compulsory Registration under section 24B of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. For the purpose of this order the facts mentioned in the leading…
🔒
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