Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 94 1975 SLD 94 (1976) 33 TAX 250
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 176 of 1962, decision dated: 27-2-1975, hearing DATE : 30/31-1-1975 & 6-2-1975
NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE
Javed Hashmi, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq and Muhammad Afzal Lone (absent on 3-2-1975) for the
Respondent.

MIAN MUHAMMAD AND COMPANY

VS

SALES TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 2(20)

[Sales Tax Act, 1951 (III of 1951)].....Sections 2(20), proviso (as amended by Finance Ordinance, 1959), 28-Assessment-Limitation Assessment year 1956-57-Period of four years of twelve months expired on 31-3-1961-Assessment made on 14-6-1961- Whether barred by limitation-Held no; B. Sales Tax Act, 1951 (III of 1951) Section 23-Penalty-Show cause notice-order imposing penalty passed contemporaneously with the main order of assessment and in fact as a consequence of it-Issuance of a separate show cause notice, whether necessary- Held no. Case relied on: Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ansar Textile Mills, Lahore P.L.D. 1966 Lah. 505 ; (1966) 13 Taxation 128. Cases referred to: Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer, A-Ward, Lyallpur (1965) 11 Taxation 184 (S.C.); P.L.D. (1965) S.C. 161: Hossein Brothers (Pale) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer (P.L.D. 1965 Dacca 28; (1964) 10 Taxation 105 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hilal Tanneries, Lahore (1976) 33 Taxation 254 (Lah.). ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH J.].,-The Sales Tax Officer (Investigation), Lahore, respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 14-6-1961, created a demand for RS. 50,332 under Section 10(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for the assessment year 1956-57 upon the petitioner Erin, and by another order passed on the same date, viz. 14-6-1961, imposed upon it a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. By this writ petition the validity of these two orders is questioned. 2. Several grounds, including those of Constitutional nature, were taken in the writ petition, but as these questions have since been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Messrs Noorani Colton Corporation v. The Sales Tax officer "A" Ward, Lyallpur [P.L.D. (1965) S.C. 161] only two contentions have been pressed before me, namely:- (a) that the impugned assessment was barred by time, because the period in which the assessment could be framed under Section 28 of the Act was four years from the end of the assessment year. In so far as the assessment year in this case ended on '1-3-1957 the assessment could be framed at the latest by 31-3-1961, hence the assessment framed on 14-6-1961 was out 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