2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Messrs CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bajwah, Judicial Member and Sohail Afzal, Accountant Member |
| Parties | Messrs CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (Trib (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 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bajwah, Judicial Member and Sohail Afzal, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD) (Messrs CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khubaib Ahmad and Rana M. Arshad, ITP for Appellants.
- Mrs. Kehkashan Khan, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5-B
Application for stay
Rejection application by the First Appellate Authority
Taxpayer contended that recovery of disputed tax demand before hearing of first appeal would amount to denying the statutory recognized right of appeal; and before taking coercive measures of recovery of tax, grievance of dispute should be adjudicated by an independent forum
If the recovery of tax demand created as a consequence of order-in-original was not stayed during the pendency of the main appeal before the First Appellate Authority, same would cause irreparable loss to tax-payer and it would be expedient that the same may be stayed
Appellate Tribunal stayed the matter till the disposal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority
First Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the main appeal of the taxpayer within a period of 45 days.
Judgment & Decree
Titled appeal has been preferred by taxpayer calling in question the impugned order dated 8-3-2012, passed by the learned CIR (A), Faisalabad, wherein taxpayer's plea for grant of stay was rejected.
2. The learned AR submitted that the 'department has passed an illegal Order-in-Original No.11 of 2012, which was assailed before the learned CIR(A) which is still pending adjudication. It is submitted by the learned AR that the taxpayer also filed an application for grant of stay before the learned CIR(A) which was illegally rejected by him. It is contended by the AR that the impugned order for rejection of stay application is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and also against the settled norms of natural justice. It is asserted by the learned AR that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before embracing the adverse order and even the viewpoint of the appellant already taken in the memo. of appeal had not been given any consideration while passing the impugned ex parte order by the learned CIR(A). It is submitted by the learned AR that Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR and the Officers of Enforcement Division of RTO, Faisalabad, are pressing hard for recovery of the disputed tax demand. It is also, submitted by the AR that the taxpayer has already deposited a sum of Rs.7,159,136 "under protest" through arrear return, hence, deposit of any additional amount at this stage would cause undue hardship to the taxpayer. It is contended by the AR that the recovery of disputed tax demand before hearing of first appeal would amount to denying the statutory 'recognized right of appeal. It is asserted by the AR that the impugned order is against the settled principle of administration of justice that before taking coercive measures of recovery of tax, grievance or dispute should be adjudicated by an independent forum. It is, therefore, prayed by the AR for interim injunction against recovery of amount adjudged against the appellant in the impugned order appealed before the learned CIR(A).
3. We have looked into the matter and after due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the assertions made by the learned AR are quite plausible. If the recovery of tax demand created as a consequence of impugned order-in-original is not stayed during the pendency of the main appeal of the present appellant before the learned CIR(A), it will obviously cause irreparable loss to it. In this state of affairs it will be quite expedient that the same may be stayed. Accordingly the same is stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the learned CIR(A). The learned CIR(A) is also directed to dispose of the main appeal of the taxpayer within a period of 45-days.
4. Appeal succeeds in the above manner. C.M.A./69/Tax(Trib.) Application accepted.