Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 270 2024 SLD 270 2024 PTD 368
Lahore High Court
S.T.R. No. 145 of 2016, decided on 28th March, 2023.
PRESENT: MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI AND JAWAD HASSAN, JJ
Shahzad Ahmad Cheema, Legal Advisor for Applicant-department. Khubaib Ahmad for
Respondent.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, RTO, FAISALABAD

VS

MESSRS CHAWLA ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 3,6,7,8,10,11(3),22,23,26,47,47(5),73

Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006

Section: 36,38

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S.47---Reference to High Court---Factual controversy---Scope---Findings of fact given by Appellate Tribunal are not open to further examination by the High Court---High Court cannot entertain any question on a finding of fact---Reference against a judgment or order of Appellate Tribunal can only be filed on a question of law. Messrs F.M.Y Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 2014 SCMR 907 and Pakistan Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Assistant Collector, Sales Tax and Central Excise Mardan and others 2019 SCMR 906 ref. ORDER: Through instant Reference Application under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("the Act of 1990"), following questions of law, asserted to have arisen out of impugned order dated 06.05.2015, passed by learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal"), have been pressed and argued for our opinion:- 1. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal IR has failed to appreciate that there is no bar under the law to pass an order under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 if the audit of the registered person was conducted earlier? 2. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal IR was justified to hold that post refund audit initiated by the competent authority in pursuance of Rules 36 and 38 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 read with Sections 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 22, 23, 26 and 73 of the Act, was illegal? 3. Whether the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal IR is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 whereas double jeopardy of tax is not involved in order-in-original, as the audit observations / tax amounts involved are different from the observations/tax amounts previously pointed out in the audit conducted under Section 38B of the Act? 2. Record shows that a show-cause notice was issued to the taxpayer for alleged violation of certain provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with SRO 283(I)/2011 dated 01.04.2011 regarding input tax adjustment, which culminated in passing of order-in -original dated 10.03.2014, which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 24.11.2014. Taxpayer filed second appeal before learned…
🔒
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