| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1299 2025 SLD 1299 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad
STA No. 95/IB/2025 (Tax Period August 2024). Date of Hearing & Order: 19.05.2025
SHARIF UD DIN KHILJI, MEMBER AND IMRAN LATIF MINHAS, MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Ismail ur Rehman, ITP/AR
Respondent by: Mian Shahzad/DR
STA No. 95/IB/2025 (Tax Period August 2024). Date of Hearing & Order: 19.05.2025
SHARIF UD DIN KHILJI, MEMBER AND IMRAN LATIF MINHAS, MEMBER
Appellant by: Mr. Ismail ur Rehman, ITP/AR
Respondent by: Mian Shahzad/DR
M/S AL AWAN ELECTRIC WORKS, PLOT NO.195, ST. 1, 1-10/3, INDUSTRIAL AREA, ISLAMABAD ... APPELLANT
VS
. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, ISLAMABAD ... RESPONDENT
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 21(2),21(5),46
Law: Sales Tax Rules, 2006
Section: 12(a)(vi),12(b)(iii)
SUMMARY;The appeal was filed by M/s Al Awan Electric Works under Section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenging the order of the Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue (CCIR), RTO Islamabad, who remanded the order of blacklisting passed by the Zonal Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zonal CIR).Key facts:The appellant’s registration was suspended by the Zonal CIR on 11.11.2024.A show cause notice for blacklisting was issued on 14.11.2024.The order for blacklisting was issued on 11.03.2025, beyond the 90-day limitation prescribed under Rule 12(b)(iii) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 (expiry: 14.02.2025).The appellant challenged the blacklisting order before the CCIR, who remanded the case instead of deciding the legality of the blacklisting.The appellant contended that the CCIR lacked jurisdiction to remand and could only modify the order under Section 21(5).The AR also highlighted failure to consider replies submitted by the appellant and procedural lapses in the departmental action.The DR supported the departmental orders, arguing that an opportunity to present the case was provided.Held:Limitation: The order of blacklisting passed beyond 90 days was barred by limitation under Rule 12(b)(iii), rendering the suspension and blacklisting void ab-initio.Jurisdiction: The CCIR under Section 21(5) had no power to remand; only to modify the order. The remand order was thus without jurisdiction.Merits: The Zonal CIR’s claim that no reply was submitted by the appellant was factually incorrect. Multiple replies were on record, demonstrating the appellant’s compliance.Impact of Blacklisting: Suspension/blacklisting should not be used to restrict business operations unless tax fraud or loss to exchequer is established, which was not the case here.The orders of the Zonal CIR and CCIR were declared illegal and void ab-initio.Appeal of the appellant was allowed.ORDER:IMRAN LATIE MINHAS (MEMBER):---.---This appeal is filed by the Registered Person (RP)/Appellant u/s 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the Act) against an order passed by the Chief Commissioner, RTO, Islamabad (CCIR) u/s 21(5) of the Act whereby order passed by the Commissioner IR (Zonal Commissioner) u/s 21(2) of the…