Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1060 2022 SLD 1060 2022 PTD 1455
Lahore High Court
S.T.R. No. 92 of 2013, decided on 1st February, 2022
ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ibrar Ahmed, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Applicant-department. Muhammad Arif Rana for
Respondent-taxpayer.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE

VS

MESSRS TARIQ SONS, LAHORE

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 4,47

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----S.4--SRO No. 1125(I)/2011, dated: 31-12-2011--Zero rating-- Retrospective effect--Scope--SRO No. 1125(I)/2011, dated: 31-12-2011 reveals that it is specifically given effect from 01-01-2012, therefore, it cannot be given retrospective effect as SRO No. 1058(I)/2011, dated: 23-11-2011 was operative which specifically restricted the adjustment of input tax--In the absence of any indication of its retrospective operation, it must not be given retrospective effect. Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Village Development Organization 2005 SCMR 492 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes----Beneficial legislation, retrospectivity of--Scope—Beneficial legislation is to be given liberal interpretation, however, for the legislation to have a retrospective effect, the beneficial legislation must carry curative or remedial content--Such legislation must, therefore, either clarify an ambiguity or an omission in the existing law and must, therefore, either be explanatory or clarificatory in nature--While beneficial legislation is to be liberally interpreted, in order to advance the beneficial object, it in no manner means that beneficial legislation or liberal interpretation necessarily includes or interchangeably means retrospective application--Unless the legislation is remedial, curative, explanatory or clarificatory, it cannot be interpreted retrospectively merely on the ground that the legislation is generally beneficial in nature. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Multan v. Mrs. Ambreen Fawad Co. Pak Arab Fertilizers Limited Multan 2014 PTD 320; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Aslam 2019 PTD 381 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Three Star Rice Factory 2021 PTD 1 ref. ORDER: C.M. No. 570 of 2013 This is an application for re-phrasing the questions of law, filed by applicant-department. When confronted; learned counsel for respondent-taxpayer has expressed no objection. 2. In view of the above, C.M. is allowed and re-phrased questions of law, annexed with this application, be made part of record. MAIN CASE 3. Through instant Reference Application under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (“the Act of…
🔒
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