Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 213 2024 SLD 213 2024 PTCL 81
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 41067/2023, announced on 15th December,2023
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE ANWAAR HUSSAIN.
Petitioner by: Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mirza Nasar Ahmad, Addl. Attorney General, Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Assistant Attorney General.Mr. Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate for the respondent--FBR

PETITIONER(S): AGRITECH LIMITED.

VS

RESPONDENT(S): FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 23,24,199

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 10,10(1)

CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973----Articles 23 & 24---Non adherence by FBR to time limit envisaged under Section 10(3) in concluding the refund claim amounts to concomitant violations of fundamental rights of tax payer guaranteed under Article 23 and 24 of Constitution, Federal Government is directed by High Court to consider possibility of initiating necessary legislation on the subject.-- Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Article 199---The petition is misconceived and premature in as much as the show cause notice issued by department has been premised on the pre refund audit proceedings and no adverse order has been passed against petitioner.---Insofar as the maintainability of the present petition is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the entire process is automated and once the application for refund was filed, the necessary validation takes place every week and reports are generated by the system and nothing is hidden from the department and therefore, the department is obligated to conclude the same within stipulated period of time and in case, at any subsequent stage, it transpires that some wrong doing has been committed by the refund claimant (the petitioner in the present case), post-refund audit proceedings can be initiated. Perusal of the record reveals that the claim of the petitioner was routed through the Sales Tax Automated Refund Repository Channel (“STARR channel”) based upon its parameters for the purpose of cross-matching the data provided with the one contained in the system and the analysis report highlighted certain discrepancies/objections. Rule 30(3) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 (“the Rules”) clearly empowers the Processing Officer or Officer-In-charge to issue show cause notice if it is found that further inquiry or audit is required in respect of the amount not cleared by the STARR Channel that is precisely the position in the instant case. Hence, the impugned show-cause notice was rightly issued. It has been contended with vehemence that the petition is maintainable in cases involving important question regarding interpretation of law and where statutory functionary acted in an oppressive…
🔒
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