Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 2(9),(43),6(2),26,34

Law: Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996

Section: 5(4)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 2(9), (43), 6(2), 26 & 34---Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996, R. 5(4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Tax not deposited on or before stipulated date under Rule 5(4) of Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996---Payment of additional tax---Vires of Rule 5(4) of Monthly Return Rules, 1996 in relation to S.6 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Company-Appellant filed tax returns and pay orders in respect of tax period on 20th of four different months along with bank instruments---Returns were accepted by Revenue Department on 22nd and 23rd of the relevant months beyond the due date of 20th of each month--Company was informed by Department that as the former did not deposit tax on or before stipulated date, therefore, it was liable to pay additional tax under S.34 of Sales Tax Act 1996---Company filed constitutional petition challenging therein vires of Rule 5(4) of Monthly Returns Rules, 1996 but petition was dismissed---Company contended that time consumed by the bank in clearance of instruments was not to constitute delay on its part---Validity---Under S.6(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, tax was to be paid along with return on or before 20th of each month being a cut out date, in the way/mode/manner and at the time specified which meant that tax was required to be deposited and received by Government treasury on or before 20th of the month and if bank instrument had not been cleared on said date then it was to be deemed that return had been filed and accepted on the date when tax was actually received---Admittedly, in the present case, the bank instrument for payment of tax was cleared after 20th of month when return was submitted---Company in view of the violation was liable to pay additional tax in accordance with S.34 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Imposition of penalty or additional tax under S.34 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was mandatory and there was no discretion left with Revenue Department to allow any exception---Case was to be decided on its merits as to whether the evasion or non-payment of tax was wilful or mala fide, decision on which was to depend on the question of recovery of additional tax---No impediment or hurdle…

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