| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 556 2002 SLD 556 2002 PTD 2077 (2002) 85 TAX 346 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.6147 of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-2002, hearing DATE : 14-11-2001
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J
Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. A. Karim Malik for
Respondents
Writ Petition No.6147 of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-2002, hearing DATE : 14-11-2001
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J
Mian Ashiq Hussain for Petitioners. A. Karim Malik for
Respondents
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and another
VS
COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: Preamble,2(22)(41),3,6,14,15,22,23,26,34 ,35,39,41
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,FourthSched
(a) Sales tax-- -----Levy of---Legislative history. {b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1990)---S.3(1)(a) [as amended by Finance Act (XI of 1996)]---Sales tax, levy of---Word. "business" as used in S.3(1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 would attract levy of sales tax with respect to which taxable supply was made during period 1991-93---Said word "business" substituted by "taxable activity" by Finance Act, 1996, would not at all be applicable to that period. (c) Sales Tax Act (III of 1990)--- ----Ss. 2(22)(41), 3, 6, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 34, 35, 39 & 41--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 & Fourth Sched., Part I, Federal Legislative List, Item No.49---Constitutional petition---Demand of sales tax on printing material/computer stationery prepared by WAPDA in year 1991-1992 by its own printing press for exclusive use in its offices--WAPDA denied liability to sales tax on the ground that printing press being run by them was not carrying on any business or making any supply" as defined in S.2(22) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity--Business being an activity undertaken by a person, natural or juristic directed towards reaping of monetary rewards, wherein selling was involved directly or indirectly---Press operated by WAPDA had not been engaged in any business as not only its employees were of WAPDA, but all the goods produced by it had never become a subject-matter of sale in any form---Material prepared or printed at the press had no rational nexus with electricity, even if WAPDA was taken to be a seller thereof-Provisions of S.3 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not at all attracted to disputed period---High Court accepted Constitutional petition and set aside both the impugned orders declaring them to be of no legal value at all. A Sanyasi Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (1989) 178 ITR 31; (1936) AC (PC) Sheikhon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 2001 PTD 2097 = 2001 SCMR 1376; Commissioner of Sales Tax and others v. Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woollen Mills Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 526; Karachi Development Authority v. C.B.R. Civil Appeal No.284 of 1987; Central Board of Revenue v. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate…
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