Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 618 2002 SLD 618 2002 PTD 2890 (2003) 88 TAX 364 2004 PTCL 97
Sindh High Court
S. T. R. No. 158 of 1992, decision dated: 22-07-2002, hearing DATE : 8-03-2002
ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ
Ms. Masooda Siraj for Applicant. Khalid Javed for
Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL, ZONEB, KARACHI

VS

Messrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD., KARACHI

Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 17,7,14,15,17(I)

(a) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---S.17---Reference to High Court---Advisory jurisdiction ---Scope--­High Court in exercise of advisory jurisdiction is supposed to give its opinion on a particular point of law referred by Tribunal or admitted by High Court on an application submitted by a party to proceedings--­Opinion of High Court has to confine itself to the point referred and should not extend to any other point. (b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)----Ss. 7, 14, 15 & 17(I)---S.R.O. 125(I)/70, dated 29-6-1970 [as amended by S.R.O. 540(I)/71, dated 23-11-1971]--- Exemption was claimed from levy of sales tax on gear boxes and axles by virtue of S.R.O. 125(I)/70, dated 29-6-1970 [as amended by S.R.O. 540(I)/1971, dated 23-11-1971]---Assessing Officer declined such exemption to assessee on the ground that parts of automotive vehicles did not form parts of machinery as defined in S.R.O. 125(I)/70---Appellate Authority found that definition of machinery was very wide and covered automotive vehicles parts---Tribunal upheld such findings of Appellate Authority---Contention of revenue was that axles and gear boxes were neither machinery within the meaning of S.R.O. 125(I)/70 nor constituted part of an engine---Validity---Nothing on record and in the reference made by Tribunal to show that such two components were used for any industrial process---Exemption was available to such machinery or component parts or spare parts of machinery as defined in the notification itself---Appellate Authority had confined its consideration of the definition of machinery to the opening part of the definition only i.e. "machinery operated by power of any description", but its latter part "such as is used in any industrial process" had been totally ignored by both Appellate Authority and Tribunal---First condition precedent for bringing a machinery within the definition given in notification was that same should be operated by power of any description; and second condition was that same should be such machinery as was used in any industrial process---Second condition was lacking in the case of manufacture and sale of gear boxes and axles produced by assessee as they were admittedly being…
🔒
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