| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 176 1985 SLD 176 1985 PTD 399 |
Sindh High Court
S.T.R. Nos. 199 and 200 of 1973, decision dated: 6th February 1984. dates of hearing: 30th January; 1st and 6-02-1984
SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ
Hassan Inamullah for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for
Respondent
S.T.R. Nos. 199 and 200 of 1973, decision dated: 6th February 1984. dates of hearing: 30th January; 1st and 6-02-1984
SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ
Hassan Inamullah for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for
Respondent
MUSTAFA Prestressed by R.C.C. Pipe Works Ltd
VS
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)
Section: 10,28(2)
Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---Ss. 10 & 28(2)--Notice in Form SST--Assessment--Validity of-Assessee filing quarterly returns--Department making assessment after issuing notice to assessee in Form SST-24--Assessee appearing in response to such notice--Contention by assessee that assessment was bad as notice under S. 28(2) of Sales Tax Act was not issued, held, was not well founded--When notice in Form SST-24 was issued it was given proper opportunity to represent its case--Sales tax assessment order, held, was unexceptionable in circumstances. JUDGMENT SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--These two reference applications under section 17 (1) of the Sales Tax Act raising 10 questions each will be disposed of by this judgment. At the rime of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the following question only: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sales-tax assessment order is valid in terms of sections 10 and 28 of the Act as existing during the chargeable accounting year? These references relate to assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessment was completed by order date 19-6-1971. From the order of assessment it seems that notice in Form SST-24 was issued and Mr. Usman Ali Advocate for the applicant had appeared before the Sales Tax Officer. It was after discussing the matter with him that the assessment order was passed. At the time of assessment the corresponding income-tax assessment had not been finalised, and therefore, the applicant counsel agreed to the rectification on completion of the income-tax assessment. The applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Mr. Hassan Inamullah, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Assessing Officer was bound to assess and complete the assessment within a period of one year and as the assessment was not completed within that period the Sales Tax Officer ought to have issued a notice under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act. As no such notice was issued the entire proceeding was illegal. At the outset it may be stated that the learned counsel for 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