| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 184 2010 SLD 184 (2000) 101 TAX 33 2009 PTD 1785 2010 PTCL 453 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.4094 of 2008, decision dated: 8-06-2009, hearing DATE : 5-06-2009
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Shahid Jameel Khan for Appellant AND Ahmad Raza along with Gulsher Auditor for
Respondent
Writ Petition No.4094 of 2008, decision dated: 8-06-2009, hearing DATE : 5-06-2009
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Shahid Jameel Khan for Appellant AND Ahmad Raza along with Gulsher Auditor for
Respondent
MULTAN ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD
VS
DIRECTOR-GENERAL (INTELLIGENCE & INVESTIGATION) SALES TAX, MULTAN and 3 others
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 38,25(2),40
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S. 38---Authorised officers to have access to premises, stocks, accounts and record of registered person---Department had addressed a number of letters and required from the registered person original record for the purpose of completion of audit---Registered person had failed to respond to said letters of the department---Registered person's reply placed on record showed his inability to provide record on the basis that same had been misplaced and could not be located---Department had been authorised by the Federal Board of Revenue to conduct audit and department, for the purpose of inquiry and investigation, could requisition the record and take the same into their custody---Registered person was bound to furnish such information or explanation as may be asked by the authorised officer, as envisaged by S.38(2), Sales Tax Act, 1990-Letters issued by the department being in accordance with law and within contemplation of S.38, registered person was bound to answer the queries and provide requisite information. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 25(2)---Audit---Access to record, documents etc.---Registered person had failed to join the proceedings of audit on the ground that "audit could be conducted once in year"---Validity---Restraint imposed on the conduct of audit once a year was with regard to the audit conducted by "officer of the Sales Tax"---Registered person had placed on record certificate of audit conduct by Audit Officer of the Revenue Receipts Audit, said officer was not the officer of Sales Tax and audit by him would not bar the audit by Sales Tax Department---Language employed in S.25(2), Sales Tax Act, 1990, was "may, once a year, conduct audit"-Use of word "may" made the provision directory and not mandatory---Said provision when read in conjunction with proviso to S.25(2) of the Act, left hardly any restraint on the authorised officer to conduct a second audit, when there was sufficient evidence or information of a tax fraud or evasion of tax. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 40---Searches under warrant--Authorised Officer had not removed goods or other record from the premises of the registered…
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