| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 760 2001 SLD 760 2001 PLD 600 2001 PTCL 237 (2001) 83 TAX 557 2001 PTD 1486 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals No. 1094 to 1303 and 1328 to 1343 of 2000, decision dated: 29-01-2001, hearing DATE : 24-01-2001
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHANUNAD FAROOQ, JJ
Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As Nos. 1094, 1095, 1342 and 1343 of 2000). Mansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General for the Federation (in All Appeals). Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C. As. No
Civil Appeals No. 1094 to 1303 and 1328 to 1343 of 2000, decision dated: 29-01-2001, hearing DATE : 24-01-2001
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHANUNAD FAROOQ, JJ
Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As Nos. 1094, 1095, 1342 and 1343 of 2000). Mansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General for the Federation (in All Appeals). Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1 (in C. As. No
THE COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others--Appellants
VS
SUPERIOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others--Respondents
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 71
(a) Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996--- ----Rr.5 & 6---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3(3-A) ---Recovery of sales tax---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether Rr.5 & 6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996, were ultra vires the Sales Tax Act, 1990. (b) Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996---Rr.5 & 6---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.3(3) & 71(1)---Notification No.SRO 118(1)/2000, dated 13-3-2000---Sales tax-, recovery of---Shifting the liability to pay the tax ---Vires of Rr.5 & 6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declared Rr. 5 & 6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996 as ultra vires to the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Provisions of S.3(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and R.6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996, made it manifest that R. 6 was. not only substantive in nature but was also violative of S.3(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, as the same had squarely shifted the liability to pay sales tax from the person making the supply i.e. the ginner to the person receiving the supply---Provisions of R. 6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996 could not take the place of S.3(3) of the Sales Tax Act inasmuch as no deviation could be made from the substantive provisions in exercise of powers conferred by S.71(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---In the event of conflict between the rule and a substantive provision of the parent Act the former was void or inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency---Notification NO.SRO.118(1)/2000, dated 13-3-2000 had regenerated Rr.5 & 6 of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996, by bringing them in line with the substantive provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990, therefore, in order to ward off confusion and further litigation Supreme Court substituted the expression 'ultra vires' as used by the High Court by the expression 'inapplicable'--Provisions of Rr.5 & 6 _ of Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996, were inapplicable to the case of the respondents in circumstances. 1999 SCMR 526 and Aruj…
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