| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2027 2021 SLD 2027 2021 PLJ 363 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 128697 of 2018, decided on 12.1.2021, Date of hearing: 12.1.2021.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE.
Mr. Arshad Nazir Mirza, Advocate and Mr. Shezal Khan Burki, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Abdullah Raza, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Advocate for
Respondents.
W.P. No. 128697 of 2018, decided on 12.1.2021, Date of hearing: 12.1.2021.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE.
Mr. Arshad Nazir Mirza, Advocate and Mr. Shezal Khan Burki, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Abdullah Raza, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Advocate for
Respondents.
PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC.
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(46)(h)(i)(j)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Sales Tax Act, 1990 (VII of 1990)-- ----S. 2(46)(h)(i)(g)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Manufacturing of white crystalline sugar--Issuance of notification--Fixation of value of domestically produced white crystalline sugar--Powers of board--Challenge to--Argument of petitioner that market price of white crystalline sugar being less than value fixed by Board, impugned notification is not applicable, is also misconceived--Admittedly petitioner’s supply of white crystalline sugar is covered under clause (a) of Section 2(46) of Act, where consideration of supply means open market price excluding tax--Under proviso to Section 2(46) of Act where value at which supply is made is higher than value fixed by Board, then value of goods shall unless otherwise directed by Board, shall be value at which supply is made--But it is neither provided nor can be construed in Section 2(46) of Act that if market price is lower than value fixed by Board then market price will prevail--First proviso being an exception to main provision, any such interpretation will render proviso redundant and meaningless counsel also argued that as proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (46) of Section 2 of Act has been confined to said clause (a), therefore, in same manner, first proviso shall also be confined to clause (g) of Section 2(46) of Act--This argument is baseless, as proviso to clause (a) is not an exception but merely defining taxable supply under clause (a) of Section 2(46) of Act, whereas first proviso under which impugned notification has been issued, is an exception to main Section 2(46) of Act, as already discussed in preceding paragraphs has merely challenged vires of notification and vires of proviso to Section 2(46) of Act, is not under challenge, whereby Board can fix value of taxable supply regardless of its market value--Therefore, it cannot be said that impugned notification was issued without jurisdiction or without lawful authority--Impugned notification being validly issued under first proviso to sub-section (46) of Section 2 of Act, is not ultra vires to law or Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution)--Petition was dismissed. Proviso--…
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