| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 456 2022 SLD 456 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
STA No. 549/IB/2021 (M.A (Stay) STA Ext. No.176/IB/2022), Date of Hearing & Order: 22.02.2022
M.M. AKRAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant By: Mr. Adnan Aslam, ITP
Respondent By: Mr. Niaz Ahmed, D.RAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, DIVISION BENCH-I, ISLAMABAD Appellant By: Mr. Adnan Aslam, ITP
Respondent By: Mr. Niaz Ahmed, D.R
STA No. 549/IB/2021 (M.A (Stay) STA Ext. No.176/IB/2022), Date of Hearing & Order: 22.02.2022
M.M. AKRAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Appellant By: Mr. Adnan Aslam, ITP
Respondent By: Mr. Niaz Ahmed, D.RAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, DIVISION BENCH-I, ISLAMABAD Appellant By: Mr. Adnan Aslam, ITP
Respondent By: Mr. Niaz Ahmed, D.R
M/S DWATSON CHEMIST, PLOT NO.48-49, CHAKLALA SCHEME III, RAWALPINDI
VS
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, RAWALPINDI. M/S DWATSON CHEMIST, PLOT NO.48-49, CHAKLALA SCHEME III, RAWALPINDI VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, RAWALPINDI.
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(43A),3(9A),8B(6),33(25A)
Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006
Section: 150ZEA
NOTES: Appellant had allegedly failed to integrate his all retail points of sale with the FBR’s computerized system for real-time reporting of sales. Orders passed by the lower authorities are annulled being void ab-initio. The appeal is accepted. ORDER: M. M. AKRAM (Judicial Member):---.--- The titled appeal along with the miscellaneous application for stay has been filed by the appellant/registered person against an Order No.76/2021-22 dated 09.11.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III), Rawalpindi on the grounds as set forth in the memo of appeal. 2. Brief facts called out from the record are that the appellant had allegedly failed to integrate his all retail points of sale with the FBR’s computerized system for real-time reporting of sales in violation of section 2(43A), 3(9A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (“the Act”) read with Rule 150ZEA of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 which rendered 15% of claimed input tax amounting to Rs.1,696,739/- as inadmissible in terms of section 8B(6) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Therefore, show cause notice was issued and the proceedings so initiated culminated in the passing of the impugned order whereby input tax of Rs.1,696,739/- was held inadmissible. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III) who decided the appeal of the registered person vide Order No.76/2021-22 dated 09.11.2021. Aggrieved with this order, the registered person has preferred an appeal before this forum and assailed the impugned order on a number of grounds. 3. The case was heard on 22.02.2022. Learned AR reiterated the contentions already submitted in the grounds of appeal as set forth in the memo of appeal. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the appeal on the ground that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a speaking order and there is no illegality or lacuna in his order. He, therefore, pleaded that the appeal be dismissed. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The issue involved in the instant case is that undisputedly the appellant had failed to integrate his all retail points of sale with the FBR’s computerized system for real-time…
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