Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1473 2011 SLD 1473 2011 PTD 1966
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No.24/K of 2011, decision dated: 10-05-2011
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.M. Javed, D.R. for Appellant. Nemo

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), R.T.O., HYDERABAD

VS

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-III), KARACHI and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 7, 11, 36, 34 & 46---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Determination of tax liability--- Input tax---Department contended that taxpayer had adjusted input tax which was inadmissible because no sales had been reported by their supplier; and the taxpayer was held responsible for that; while the First Appellate Authority observed that "taxpayer had been deprived from his legal right of claiming input tax adjustment on merely a complaint, which had never been revealed to the taxpayer and no whereabouts of person complaining were known and incorporated in order regarding its authenticity"; and admittedly, the case was not a case of lodging complaint by some one against the taxpayer---Validity---Such was a case of misuse of exercise of powers under an enactment---Facts of some other case had wrongly been included in the case for making a base of wrong decision by the First Appellate Authority---Order passed hurriedly in a slipshod manner was against the principle of natural justice---By no stretch of imagination, the order may be considered passed judiciously, consciously, fairly and justly and the same was not sustainable in law. 1998 SCMR 2268 and PLD 2005 Lah. 381 rel. (b) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S.24-A---Exercise of power under an enactment---Public functionaries were obliged to decide the matters of the citizens in accordance with law with sound reasons. ORDER SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---The captioned appeal under section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 against the Order-in-Appeal No.59 of 2010, dated 16-11-2010 has been preferred by the department mainly on the grounds that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III) in haste on the very first hearing and without giving hearing opportunity to the department and the appellate order passed without merits, ignores the relevant material evidences to such an extent that the facts of some other case have been applied erroneously which are complete irrelevant to the case in hand and therefore, the same is not tenable in law, particularly, the Adjudicating Officer has passed a speaking order, as the taxpayer has…
🔒
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