2003 PLP 1819 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs BREEZE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1819 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs BREEZE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1819 (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 2003 PLP 1819 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1819 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs BREEZE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim Malik for Appellant. Imran Shafique for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.10, 9 & 7
Excess amount to be carried forward or refunded-- Determination of tax liability
Claimed input tax adjustment was disallowed on the ground that the material imported was not consumed it the goods supplied during the tax period
Appellate Tribunal found that excess -amount could both be carried forward as well as be refunded- Validity
Consumption of raw material on which input tax was paid was not relatable to the claim of input tax which could be claimed both it respect of taxable supplies made during the relevant tax period or to be made
For the purpose of adjustment of input tax it was only the tax period and not the consumption of raw material which was relevant- Intention of law was clear from the provision of S.10 of the Sales Tai Act; 1990 that excess amount could both be carried forward as well as bi refunded
High Court declined interference with the order of the Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
The respondent Messrs Breeze Industries, Harbanspura Road, Lahore, are a registered person and at the relevant time were proceeded against on the ground of their having wrongly made input tax adjustment amounting to Rs.83,249 in monthly returns filed for the period April, 1996. The department earlier found that a quantity of 4186 kgs. of steel tubes (copper coated) imported by the respondent and got cleared on 5-4-1996 against which input tax adjustment was claimed had not been consumed in the goods supplied during the tax period i.e. .April, 1996. Therefore, the Assessing Officer directed payment o, the aforesaid wrongly adjusted amount alongwith additional tax and surcharge.
2. The order so recorded was maintained by the first Appellate Authority.
3. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore with reference to the provisions of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 reached the conclusion that adjustment claimed by the respondent-assessee was in line with the letter and spirit of law as contained in these provisions. Hence this further appeal by the Revenue.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not upon to exception. The provisions of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are cleared in their tone and loner that an asses see/registered person is entitled to deduct input, tax paid during the tax period for the purpose of taxable supplies made or to be made by him from the output tax which is due from him in respect of that tax period.' In other words the consumption of raw-material on which input tax was paid is not directly relateable to the claim of input tax which can be claimed both in respect of the taxable supplies made during that tax period or to be made. For the purpose of adjustment of input tax it is only the tax period and not the consumption of raw material which is relevant. The intention of law is otherwise clear from the following provisions of section 10 existing at the relevant time and even those as exist today that excess amount can both be carries forward as well as be refunded. In case the interpretation of the department in accepted then the provisions of section 10 both substituted as well as those presently existing would become redundant. That can hardly be the intention of the law. Therefore, as remarked earlier, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.