Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 3,3(1A),2(44),33,34,7(1),66,25,38,32A(3) ,32A

(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S.3(1A)---Further tax---Levy of---Appellant/taxpayer claimed that supply of bitumen was made to end users who being end users were not liable to be registered and further tax was not chargeable-.-Department contended that supplies were made to contractors-Validity--Adjudicating Officer had failed to determine as to in whose names invoices for supplies of bitumen were issued by the taxpayer and whether those supplies were made on the basis of agreement with Government agencies who were end users and whether the consideration for those supplies were made by the Government agencies not liable to registration or the recipients themselves---Both parties failed, to substantiate their rival claims with documentary evidence or otherwise---Facts whether supplies were actually made to Government organizations as end users or to the contractors need to be verified to determine whether further tax was chargeable or not---Order of Adjudicating Officer was set aside and case was remanded for de novo decision after ascertaining as to from whom the supplies of bitumen were made i.e. to Government organizations or other persons, if any, not liable to registration or to contractors or other persons who were liable to registration as claimed by the sales tax authorities and then decide the case on merit and according to law after affording both the parties adequate opportunity of hearing and enabling them to lead evidence in support of the respective claims. 2004 SCMR 456; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2165; 2002 PTD 2440; 2002 PTD 2771 Appeal No.1866 of 1996 and Tax Appeal No.4 of 2003 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 2(44), 3, 33 & 34---Time of supply---Non-payment of sales tax on advances received against taxable 'supplies---Demand of principal amount along with penalty and additional tax---Validity---Appellant/taxpayer claimed that on non-payment of advances, it could be a case of deferred payment of sales tax on which the Adjudicating Officer could have considered imposition of penalty and additional tax and demand of principal amount along with penalty and additional tax was not justified---Department claimed that principal amount was…

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