| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2127 2022 SLD 2127 2022 PTCL 709 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No. 269/LB/2021, decided on 18th June, 2021.
MR. SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMAN, DR. MUHAMMAD NAEEM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Appellant by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate.
Respondent by: Mrs. Kiran Maqsood, (DR).
S.T.A. No. 269/LB/2021, decided on 18th June, 2021.
MR. SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMAN, DR. MUHAMMAD NAEEM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
Appellant by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate.
Respondent by: Mrs. Kiran Maqsood, (DR).
M/S. M.K. SONS (PVT) LIMITED, KHURRIANWALA, FAISALABAD. VSTHE CIR, RTO, FAISALABAD.
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(35),7,8,8(1)(a),10,46
SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (VII OF 1990) Section 2(35) There can be no sales tax on the disposal of the fixed assets because the Fixed assets do not fall within the ambit/ definition of goods as envisaged under taxable activity as provided in Section 2(35).—There can be no sales tax on the disposal of the fixed assets because the fixed assets do not fall within the ambit/definition of goods as envisaged under taxable activity as provided in section 2(35) of the Act as held by the Sindh High Court, Karachi in case of M/s. Novartis Pakistan Ltd reported as (PTCL 2002 CL 50). Section 3 No input tax was claimed/adjusted on purchase of fixed assets therefore, charging of sales tax on its subsequent disposal is not just and fair in terms of Serial No. 6 of Table-2 given under the Sixth Scheduled annexed with the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and obliviously resulting in double taxation not permissible under law.—Moreover, no input tax was claimed/adjusted on purchase of such goods therefore, charging of sales tax on its subsequent disposal is not just and fair in terms of Serial No. 6 of Table-2 given under the Sixth Scheduled annexed with the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and obliviously resulting in double taxation not permissible under law as held by the Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in case of M/s. Nestle Milk Pak Ltd reported as (PTCL 2001 CL 627). Sections 7, 8 The keyword used in both Section 7 and Section 8(1)(a) “purpose” which meant that input tax could be deducted on goods used for the purpose of taxable supplies made or to be made. The expression “purpose” has a very wide application and according to dictionary meaning the same refers to what something is supposed to be achieved. In this case, there is no doubt that alleged goods were used to facilitate the production and manufacturing of the end product and were placed to achieve the growth in the business and that fulfils the requirement of “purpose” as used in the relevant provisions of law. In other words, issue of adjustment of input tax was to be resolved with reference to the actual use of input in making of taxable supplies and criterion of integral part is not valid. Sections 7, 8, 10 The provisions of Section 8(l)(a)…
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