| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2321 2020 SLD 2321 (2020) 122 TAX 527 2021 PTD 871 |
Lahore High Court
STR No. 02 of 2009, decided & hearing Date : 05.03.2018
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOUD SETHI, JUSTICE
Syed Tanseer Bukhari, Advocate for applicant Ms. Partial Zafar, department Advocate for respondent-taxpayer.
STR No. 02 of 2009, decided & hearing Date : 05.03.2018
SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOUD SETHI, JUSTICE
Syed Tanseer Bukhari, Advocate for applicant Ms. Partial Zafar, department Advocate for respondent-taxpayer.
M/S PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES, RAWALPINDI
VS
DEPUTY COLLECTOR ADJUDICATION & OTHERS
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 11(4),36(3),47
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 24A
SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (VII OF 1990) Sections: 11(4), 36(3) & 47 - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 24A - Assessment of tax and recovery of lax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded - Failure to pay sales tax on total value of supplies - Show Cause Notice - Passing of order-in-original - Rejection of appeal by the Collector (Appeal) - Dismissal by Appellate Tribunal - Reference to High Court - FACTS Brief facts of the case are that respondent-department issued a Show Cause Notice ("SCN") to applicant-taxpayer, alleging therein that applicant-taxpayer had not paid sales tax on total value of supplies and evaded sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,640,632/-, which culminated in passing of order-in-original ("ONO") DATED 02.06.2003. Feeling aggrieved, applicant-taxpayer filed appeal before Collector (Appeals), which was rejected vide order dated 31.03.2005. Being dissatisfied, applicant-taxpayer filed appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed vide dated 23.09.2008. The said has been assailed by applicant-taxpayer through instant Reference Application. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for applicant-taxpayer submits that ONO is barred by time, having been passed after expiry of more than 01-Year, 06-Months, lie further submits that learned Appellate Tribunal, while passing impugned , has not given any findings as to whether SCN is barred by time or not, thus, impugned is violative of section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and law laid down by the superior Courts. In the end, he submits that impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for respondent- department, despite arguments at some length, failed to rebut that impugned lacks valid lawful reasons and does not cover all aspects of the matter. DECISION (A.) Non-application of independent mind by Appellate Tribunal qua the order in original being barred by time - The Appellate Tribunal has not applied its independent mind to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant-taxpayer qua the ONO being barred by time by more than 01-Year, 06-Months and latest of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported as The Collector of Sales Tax,…
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