| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 38 2021 SLD 38 2021 PTD 138 |
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Customs Appeal No. K-1179 of 2016, decided on 7th October, 2019, Date of hearing: 16th September, 2019.
JAHANIAIB WAHLAH, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-III
Petitioner(s) by: Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant
Respondents by: Ilyas Gichki, A.O.
Customs Appeal No. K-1179 of 2016, decided on 7th October, 2019, Date of hearing: 16th September, 2019.
JAHANIAIB WAHLAH, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-III
Petitioner(s) by: Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant
Respondents by: Ilyas Gichki, A.O.
M/S ORIENT PAK INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE
VS
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GROUP-VI, MCC, (APPRAISEMENT-EAST). KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 18,18A,18C,32,198,202
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 11
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 162
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.18, 18A, 18C, 32, 198 & 202-Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 162-Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 11-Mis-declaration- Income tax and Sales tax, recovery of-Show-cause notice- Jurisdiction-Valuation Ruling (VR)-Object, purpose and scope- Importer was aggrieved of show-cause notice issued by Deputy Collector for recovery of taxes including sales tax and income tax, on the plea of mis-declaration-Validity-Clearance Collectorates did not have authority to collect Sales Tax and Income Tax at import stage in the capacity of collecting agent and could recover escaped / short payment paid Customs Duty and Regulatory Duty levied on imported goods under Ss.18, 18A, 18C & 202 of Customs Act, 1969, after due process of law- Customs authorities had no powers to adjudicate the cases of short recovery / evaded amount of Sales Tax and Income Tax falling within the ambit of S.11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Show-cause notice and order in original were issued by Deputy Collector by encroaching powers of Assistant Collector-Nobody Has allowed to usurp powers as defined of Adjudicating Authority-Rendering act of issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order in original without power / jurisdiction was ab initio null and void and coram non judice-No charge of mis- declaration on the basis of Valuation Ruling (VR) could be levelled as that least qualified to definition of 'direct evidence' warranted under law-Valuation Ruling (VR) was only for the purpose of assessment not for levelling charge of mis-declaration of value-Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside show-cause notice issued to importer as of no legal effect and based on no evidence-Appeal was allowed accordingly. Central Insurance Company v. CBR 1996 SCMR 1232; Messrs lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Appellate Tribunal 2005 PTD 2462; Asst. Collector v. Khyber Elec. Lamps 2003 PTD 1275; D.G. Khan Cement v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 480; Caltex v. Collector 2003 PTD 1593; Union Playing Card Company v. Collector of Customs 2002 MLD 130; Atlas Tyres v. Addl. Collector 2002 MLD 180; State Cement v.…
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