Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 112 1982 SLD 112 1982 PTD 372
Sindh High Court
Civil Reference No. 2 of 1972, decision dated: 5-05-1982, hearing DATE : 5-05-1982
NAIMUDDIN AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ
Ali Athar for Applicant. Haider Ali Pirzada for
Respondent

MESSRS FARROKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES

VS

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 17,17(1),(3),7

Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--S. 17(1), (3) read with S. 7 and Notification No. 9, dated 27-6-1951 Reference to High Court Dispute relating to exemption in respect of Sodium Silicate manufactured by assessee Tribunal not stating whether such Sodium Silicate was in Liquid form or in solid form Such finding material for purposes of answer to question referred by Tribunal Statement of facts, not being sufficient to enable High Court to determine question, Tribunal required to make necessary modification therein. Messrs Karnani Properties Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, Calcutta A I R 1972 S C 2315 distinguished. The Law of Sales Tax in Pakistan by Raaa Yaqvi, 9th Revised Edn., p. 592 ref. JUDGMENT NAIMUDDIN, J. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench, Karachi by the order dated 10-8-1970, has referred to this Court the following question of law for answer: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Sodium Silicate was not a product of steam and as such not exempt from the payment of sales tax under Item No. 15 of Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-1951 ? This question is based on the following statement of facts : Statement of the Case "These five Applications under section 17(1) of the Sales Tax Act preferred by the assessee require us to refer the following common questions to the High Court for its opinion : "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant is liable to assessment of Sales Tax in respect of its product called Sodium Silicate ? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the product Sodium Silicate was not a steam product within the meaning of Item No. 15 of the Notification of the Central Board of Revenue No. 3 dated 26-3-1968 ? (iii) Whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to hold that there was no concern of steam with the making of Sodium Silicate, so that it was not used as energy and was not this finding contradictory to the evidence on the record in the form of technical and scientific data ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that in order…
🔒
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