Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1618 2021 SLD 1618 2021 PTD 1392
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1972-L of 2017, decided & hearing Date : 15-01-2021 (Against the judgment Dated 24.05.2017 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Sales Tax Reference No. 74 of 2010)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court (v.1 Lahore)
Respondent(s) by: Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court

MESSRS FATEH YARN (PVT). LTD. FAISALABAD

VS

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 7(1)

(a) Taxation-- --Factual controversy--Superior courts, jurisdiction of--Scope-- Superior courts could not engage in factual controversies, however an exception had been carved out for situations where a substantial defect in the reading of oral or documentary evidence was pointed out. Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Subhan 1999 SCMR 1245 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)-- --S. 7(1)--Input tax credit, claim of--Fake documentary evidence-- No reliable documentary evidence was provided by the petitioner-tax payer to support its claim of input tax credit, therefore the same should be disallowed (in fact whatever evidence had been provided was fake)-- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and partly allowed. (c) Taxation-- --Notice--Tax liability mentioned in the notice--Scope--Order of adjudication passed on the basis of a ground not stated in the notice was palpably illegal and void on the face of it--Same logic should extend to an order imposing a tax liability for a time period not mentioned in the notice--Purpose of serving a notice on a taxpayer was  to notify him of the case against him--When such a document contained incomplete information it could seriously prejudice the taxpayer’s defence. The Collector Central Excise and Land Customs v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840 ref. ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- This petition for leave to appeal impugns the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 24.05.2017 passed in Sales Tax Reference No.74 of 2010 (“Reference”). The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the learned. High Court answered the Reference in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of questions which were neither rooted in law nor were they discussed in the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the questions considered by the learned High Court in the Reference are produced below: “...2. Whether any forged documents may have any value unless it is shown that Sales Tax for the ‘supply invoice’ was actually deposited in the state treasury? 4. Whether the refund can be made even [though] the prerequisites laid down by the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 have not been fulfilled?...” 2. The…
🔒
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