| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2251 2026 SLD 2251 = 2026 PTCL 689 |
Lahore High Court
Tax Reference (PRA) No. 60530 of 2023, decided on 13th January, 2026.
Presented By: Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains and Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq. Tax Reference (PRA) No. 60530 of 2023, decided on 13th January, 2026.
Appellant by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Qasim Hassan Khan, Advocate.
Tax Reference (PRA) No. 60530 of 2023, decided on 13th January, 2026.
Presented By: Mr. Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains and Mr. Justice Khalid Ishaq. Tax Reference (PRA) No. 60530 of 2023, decided on 13th January, 2026.
Appellant by: Mr. Khubaib Ahmad, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Qasim Hassan Khan, Advocate.
Applicant: Respondents: M/s. Spel Technology Support (Pvt.) Ltd.
VERSUS
: The Appellate Tribunal, Punjab Revenue Authority, etc.
Law: Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012
Section: 10, 24, 63
PUNJAB SALES TAX ON SERVICES ACT, 2012 Sections 10 & 24 The Assessing Officer went beyond the scope of allegation confronted through SCN and proceeded to pass the ONO while adjudicating upon the grounds and issues which were alien to the SCN. Such a course of action is not tenable.--The perusal of the record reveals that the SCN was purportedly issued on the basis of difference between the value of services declared in the audited financial statements and the sales tax returns of the applicant company filed with FBR, however, while passing the ONO, the Assessing Officer went beyond the scope of allegation confronted through SCN and proceeded to pass the ONO while adjudicating upon the grounds and issues which were alien to the SCN. Such a course of action is not tenable and has consistently been deprecated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. [Para 4 at A] The very grounds made basis for initiation and subsequent culmination of proceeding against the applicant company, are non-existent in the SCN, which ought to have been included and absence thereof renders the entire proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law.--The very grounds made basis for initiation and subsequent culmination of proceeding against the applicant company, are non-existent in the SCN, which ought to have been included and absence thereof renders the entire proceedings as a nullity in the eye of law. The applicant company pleaded in the reply to the SCN that the disputed amounts were reflected in the audited accounts under the head “Net Sales” and as such related to supply of goods and thus, are not covered under the ambit of Punjab Revenue Authority. While dealing with this assertion, the Assessing Officer raised queries qua the heads ‘After Sales Services’ and ‘Commission Income’ and held that no explanation qua these two heads has been provided. Though, the ONO reflects that an opportunity was provided to the applicant company to explain these heads, however, the same was not done through any supplementary or additional show cause notice and proceedings were carried on while relying on the SCN, which did not contain these…