2007 PLP 663 (PTD)
Messrs ITTEHAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and 2 others
| Citation | 2007 PLP 663 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ITTEHAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 663 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 663 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 663 (PTD) (Messrs ITTEHAD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 47
Two questions had been raised; firstly, whether assessee could be declined input tax adjustment on electricity consumed in its administrative offices; and secondly, whether assessee could be declined input tax adjustment on supplies received
Genuineness of tax invoice was essential for sustaining a claim of input tax adjustment under the law
Whether in the facts of the case, disputed invoice was genuine or false was a question of fact
Counsel for assessee had not disputed the validity or propriety of any test applied by department to establish genuineness of invoice tendered by assessee
Where department disputed the genuineness of tendered invoices, question raised was one of fact and no legal issue had arisen for determination of High Court; other question posed in the reference not being a question of law, was outside the statutory ambit of jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This reference is filed against the judgment, dated 2-5-2006 by the learned Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein two questions are raised. These are firstly, whether the applicant can be declined input tax adjustment on electricity consumed in its administrative offices, and secondly, whether the applicant can be declined input tax adjustment on supplies received by it because the relevant tax invoices are alleged to be fake.
2. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Tribunal shows that the applicant also runs a canteen operating in its registered premises. And that during the relevant period the applicant deposited an amount of Rs.125,383 inadmissible amount of input tax adjustment against consumption of electricity in the canteen. The deposit made by the applicant constitutes its admission that electricity consumption in its premises occurs partly for a non-productive activity. By the said admission on record the first question raised before us is misconceived. The relevant electricity consumption for the purpose of claimed input tax adjustment did not take place in the applicant's office but elsewhere. That suffices to obviate the question framed.
3. The impugned order also notes that during the relevant period the applicant made a deposit of Rs.3,69,097 as inadmissible input tax adjustment against fake invoices from five suppliers. This fact pertains to the second question raised before us; it also contains an acknowledgement that fake invoices were being received and tendered for adjustment by the applicant. It goes without saying that the genuineness of a tax invoice is essential for sustaining a claim of input tax adjustment under the law. Whether in the facts of the case, a disputed invoice is genuine or fake is a question of fact. Before us the learned counsel has not disputed the validity or propriety of any test applied by the respondent-department to establish the genuineness of the invoices tendered by the applicant. Resultantly, in the present case where the respondents dispute the genuineness of the tendered invoices the question raised is one of fact and no legal issue arises for our determination. The second question posed in the reference is not a question of law and therefore outside the statutory ambit of our jurisdiction.
4. For the reasons given above this reference is dismissed. H.B.T./I-74/L Reference dismissed.