| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 666 2022 SLD 666 2022 PTCL 197 (2022) 125 TAX 340 2022 PTD 1079 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.P. No. D-5107 of 2021. decided on 18th February, 2022 (along with 95 other petitions as per Annexure A to this Judgment).
MR. CHEIF, JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, MR., JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, MR., JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED.
Petitioner by: Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema, ASC.
Respondents by: Mr. Anis-ur-Rehman, Legal Advisor.
C.P. No. D-5107 of 2021. decided on 18th February, 2022 (along with 95 other petitions as per Annexure A to this Judgment).
MR. CHEIF, JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, MR., JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, MR., JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED.
Petitioner by: Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema, ASC.
Respondents by: Mr. Anis-ur-Rehman, Legal Advisor.
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE.
VS
M/S. SARGODHA SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. FAISALABAD. ETC.
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(14),7,8,8A,10,22,26,36,46,47,47(1)
SALES TAX ACT, 1990 Sections 46 , 47 Tribunal has settled the factual controversy and the Department has failed to produce or establish that tax receipts from suppliers were illegal or no tax was deposited against them by suppliers in Government Treasury, High Court declines to exercise advisory jurisdiction as no question of law arise and reference is not maintainable.- The Tribunal determined the factual controversy in the case by holding that the department failed to refer or produce any document or evidence to establish that the invoices issued by the suppliers were fake or forged and that the same could not have been issued by the suppliers to the respondent assesse. The only question of law raised was that could the Tribunal allow refund based on invoices where sales tax was not deposited in the government treasury by the respective supplier. No question of law specifically regarding gross misreading of evidence by the Tribunal was raised as a question of law. It has also been established and clearly borne out from section 47(1) of the Act that the “question of law” must arise from the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and in the absence thereof, any such reference is not maintainable (M/s. Mohammad Akbar v. I. T.A.T. 1972 SCMR 409; M/s F.M.Y. Industries V. Deputy Commissioner I. T. PTCL 2014 CL. 686; M/s PTV Corporation Ltd. V. Commissioner Inland Revenue 2017 SCMR 1136; M/s Squibb Pakistan v. Commissioner of I.T. PTCL 2017 CL. 646). In the present case, the High Court has clearly noted in the impugned order that the Tribunal has settled the factual controversy and the department has failed to produce or establish that the tax receipts from the suppliers were illegal or no tax was deposited against them by the suppliers in the Government Treasury. In this background the High Court held that no “question of law” arose from the order of the Tribunal and declined to exercise advisory jurisdiction. Tribunal is the final forum for determination of facts in tax matters. The Appellate Tribunal is the fact finding body and its finding of facts are conclusive, High Court cannot disturb them unless it is shown that there was no evidence on which Appellate…
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