| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1655 2002 SLD 1655 2002 SCMR 738 (2003) 87 TAX 49 2003 PTCL 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.1492 and 1493 of 1996, decision dated:25-09-2001 (On Appeal from the judgment/order dated21-1-1996 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in WritPetitions Nos.1052 and 1053 of 1995)
NASIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1
Civil Appeals Nos.1492 and 1493 of 1996, decision dated:25-09-2001 (On Appeal from the judgment/order dated21-1-1996 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in WritPetitions Nos.1052 and 1053 of 1995)
NASIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAXvsRUPALI POLYESTER LIMITED and others
Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)
Section: 30A
Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944
Section: 9,10,11
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
[Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)]......S 30-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)_--Refund of excess sales tax---Contention of the Authorities was that under S.30-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, any amount collected by way of sales tax which in fact was not payable as tax or which was in excess of the tax had to be paid to the Federal Government -and that the company had in fact collected the sales tar from the consumers and, therefore, the company was not entitled to any refund on the ground that it was not liable to pay the tax because the products in question were exempt from the levy of the sales tax---Authorities further alleged that the company did not specifically deny in the reply to show-cause notice that it did not collect the sales tax from the consumers of the goods in question---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine, inter alia, the contentions of the Authorities. (b) Central Excise Rules, 1944--- ----R. 10---Short levied or erroneous refund of excise duty ---Recovery--Object and scope of provisions of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944--Main object of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is to provide limitation in different situations arising out of levying and recovery of the excise duty which cannot be made beyond the period of limitation---Rule 10 has nothing to do with the claims pertaining to refund but on the contrary it deals with those cases where some erroneous refund has been made and its recovery is involved. PTCL 1984 CL 24 ref. (c) Central Excise Rules, 1944--- ----R.9---Excise duty, refund of---Tax paid on account of some mistake of law/fact or compulsion---Effect---Such payment cannot be refunded under R.9 of 'the Excise Rules, 1944, because mistake of law/fact in inadvertence or error are quite distinct to each other and neither synonymous not interchangeable. 1994 CLC 994 ref. (d) Interpretation of statutes-- ---- Object of---Intention of the Legislature---Canons of construction and rules of interpretation are directed to one and only one end, namely, towards finding out the intention of the Legislature when such intention is clear, then there is no room for praying in aid any extreanous…
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