Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 928 2022 SLD 928 (2022) 126 TAX 122
Sindh High Court
CP D 190 to 194 of 2011 decided on 22.12.2020
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE, AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
Barrister Makhdoom Ali Khan for the Petitioner. Saifullah Assistant Advocate General and Ghulam Abbas Naich Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue, Sindh

PAKISTAN MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (MOBILINK) AND OTHERS

VS

THE PROVINCE OF SINDH OTHERS

Law: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011

Section: 3

Law: Stamp Act, of 1899

Section: 2(22B),3,10,17,29,33

SINDH SALES TAX ON SERVICES ACT, 2011 (XII OF 2011)---Section: 3 - Stamp Act, 1899, sections: 2(22B), 3, 10, 17, 29 , 33 - Taxable service - Stamp duty - Instruments chargeable with duty - Duties how to be paid and by whom - Instruments executed in Pakistan - Duties by whom payable - Examination and impounding of instruments - Petitioners are cellular companies operating in Pakistan - Customers of Petitioners executed cellular agreement forms to receive telecommunication services - Respondents have subjected the forms to stamp duty to be charged from the petitioner - Validity - Who will pay the stamp duty - Question for determination - FACTS The petitioners are cellular companies operating in Pakistan under license granted by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (“PTA”). The customers of the petitioners executed Cellular Services Agreement Forms (“Forms”) to receive telecommunication services. The respondents have subjected the forms to stamp duty, however, recoverable from the petitioners. The present petitions were instituted in 2011 assailing the recovery of stamp duty. Since the subject matter is common inter se and these petitions were heard and reserved conjunctively, therefore, determination hereof shall be endeavored vide this common . The facts pertaining to CP D 190 of 2011 are representative of the facts pertaining to the rest of the petitions, listed supra, therefore, it may suffice to confine the factual discussion to the controversy as presented in the aforementioned petition. Briefly stated, the petitioners had maintained that the stamp duty on forms cannot be levied/recovered there from, hence, made an application dated 15.06.2010 to the Chief Inspector, Stamps for clarification as well as refund of stamp duties paid. The Chief Inspector of Stamps, respondent No.2, rendered a reply/opinion (“Opinion”) in such regard according to which duty is to be paid by the executant(s), therefore, it is for the executant(s) to decide who shall pay the duty or share the burden of duty amongst themselves. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the levy and collection of stamp duty in respect of the Forms upon the petitioners is…
🔒
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