Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1071 2011 SLD 1071 2011 PTD 633
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. No.815/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-06-2010
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS

VS

COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, LTU, LAHORE

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 7,25

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 7---Determination of tax liability---Affixation of registration number of supplier on invoices at later stage---Rejection of invoice on the objection which was not subject matter at the time of issuance of show-cause notice or passing the order-in-original---Claim of input tax adjustment was allowed but subsequently on an audit made by DRRA, taxpayer was confronted with thirteen purchase invoices objecting that the registration number was not obtaining on the same and demand including default surcharge and penalty was created---First Appellate Authority found that purpose of S.7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was to determine the legality of the claim of input tax; and even otherwise required registration number having duly been affixed at a later stage there was no reason for not accepting the same---First Appellate Authority, however, allowed only twelve of the said invoices while rejected one by raising another objection which was not subject matter at the time of issuance of show-cause notice or passing the order-in-­original---Validity---At the time of issuance of show-cause notice no other discrepancy was found by the department except non- mentioning of the registration number which had subsequently been added----Collector (Appeals) while dealing with an appeal filed by the taxpayer had no jurisdiction to discover any new defect in the proceedings; he had neither any revisional authority nor any other issue was before him for discussion he was dealing with the appeal of the taxpayer in which the only issue to be adjudicated by him was whether non-mentioning of the registration number on the invoices was fatal and whether subsequent pasting of the same In the said invoices cure the lacunae or not---Collector (Appeals) by accepting twelve other invoices had made him functus officio and had impliedly held that the lacunae in invoice was curable; and should have ended the matter there and "ten---Collector (Appeals) had come to the conclusion that the invoices had been validated after certification by the concerned suppliers---No other discrepancy in the invoice either was found and the same should also have been placed…
🔒
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