Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 2,3,6,7,11,26,34,35,36,46

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 3, 6, 7, 11, 26, 34, 35, 36 & 46---Determination of tax liability---Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded---Appellant/registered person, had filed appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Collector Customs---Difference in sale of sugar price on the same date was discovered during audit for the relevant period and Sales Tax was demanded for violation of Ss.2, 3, 6, 7, 11 & 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which was found recoverable under Ss.36(1), 34 & 35 of the Act---Departmental Representative defended the impugned order, but could not produce any justification for empowering the DRRA with the power to audit the registered person---Validity---DRRA, was coram non judice and the show-cause notice as well as order issued thereunder was without necessary legal validity---Orders as well as show-cause notice, issued by the authorities below, were set aside---Department could conduct fresh audit of the unit, if so permissible under the law---In case any contravention was detected, unit could be proceeded against in accordance with law. 2010 PTD 1355 ref. ORDER AMJAD IKRAM ALI, MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT).---Titled appeal has been preferred at the behest of the registered person against the Order-in-Appeal No.85/ST/2008 dated 11-10-2008 passed by the Collector Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals), Lahore. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the difference in sale of sugar price on the same date was discovered during audit for the period 7 of 2005 to 6 of 2007 and sales tax demand for violation of sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 which was found recoverable under section 36(1) read with sections 34 and 35 of the Act. In first appeal before the Collector Customs, the jurisdiction of DRRA to conduct audit was challenged. The first appellate authority narrated the argument of the learned DR that the Hon'ble Ombudsman had in the case Tatara Enterprises v. Secretary Revenue Division had settled the matter by holding that the plea of the complainant that DRRA had no authority to audit the accounts of the complainant as without force. Besides challenging the merits of…

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