| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 93 1975 SLD 93 (1976) 33 TAX 36 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
S.T.A. Nos. 84(KB) and 85(KB) of 1972-73, (Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70), decision dated: 5-6-1974
MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. K. SALAUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
H. Shaban, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ahmad Niaz, D.R., for the
Respondent.
S.T.A. Nos. 84(KB) and 85(KB) of 1972-73, (Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70), decision dated: 5-6-1974
MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. K. SALAUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
H. Shaban, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ahmad Niaz, D.R., for the
Respondent.
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)
Section: 28,10(3),28
[Sales Tax Act, 1951(Ill of 1951)].......Sections 10(3), 28--Assessment Failure to file return during respective years-Assessment made under Section 10(3) without faking recrouse to Section 28-Whether valid in law-Held no. Now as is quite apparent from a plain reading of Section 28 issuance of a notice to the appellant is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings. According to the learned Departmental Representative the letter dated 12-10-71 was in effect and substance a notice under Section 28, but as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant not only that this letter no where mentioned Section 28 the very subject of the letter shows that the Sales Tux Officer is not invoking the provisions of Section 28 at all. The letter is also not couched in such terms that it may be equated with the form prescribed for notice under Section 25 (S.S.T, 15) by this letter the Sales Tax Officer required the appellant to make payment and tile the quarterly return within 7 days of the receipt there of whereas the prescribed form envisages that a minimum period of 35 days be allowed for filing the return, the irressistible conclusion therefore is that the Sales Tax Officer did not at all invoke the provisions of Section 28 for initiating the proceedings which culminated in passing the impugned orders. The proceedings are, therefore, ab initio void and the assessments under consideration are, therefore, not sustainable in law. Case referred to: (1969) 19 Taxation 25(trib). JUDGMENT [The order was passed by K SALAHUDDIN, Accountant Member].- The appellant, a baker and Confectioner, manufactures bread, loose biscuits, cakes and pastries, Breads and loose biscuits are admittedly not liable to sales tax. In respect of the two quarters of the year 1968-69 ending on 30-9-1968 respectively the appellant filed returns showing taxable sales of cakes and pastries amounting to Rs, 11,740. No returns were filed in respect of the other two quarters of this year. The Sales Tax Officer thereupon issued a summons on SST Form 24 in response to which the appellant's accountant appeared before him .But did not furnish the details of sales and payment of taxes. The…
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