2003 PLP 1817 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED, FAISALABAD ROAD, SHEIKHUPURA
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1817 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar ana muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED, FAISALABAD ROAD, SHEIKHUPURA |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1817 (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 1817 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar ana muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1817 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE Versus HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED, FAISALABAD ROAD, SHEIKHUPURA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim Malik for Appellant.
- Zaheer Ahmed Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7(1)(a) [as amended by Finance Act (IX of 1996)] & 10
Adjustment of input tax claimed by assessee from January, 1995 to June, 1995 on raw material purchased for production
Department proceeded against assessee alleging adjustment having been claimed wrongly as same was allowable only proportionate to quantity of raw material consumed during each month, which was tax period and not in anticipation of future consumption
Such adjustment had caused no prejudice to interest of Revenue
Amendment introduced in S.7(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 by Finance Act, 1996 was not only clarificatory, but also curative in nature. --Provisions of S.10 bf Sales Tax Act, 1990 providing for adjustment and refund would be rendered superfluous if the Department's interpretation of said provisions was accepted
High Court dismissed appeal in limine. Municipal Committee, Kasur v. Messrs Mehboob 1975 SCMR 180 ref. Prime Commercial Bank and others v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 1997 PTD 605 rel. .
Judgment & Decree
Through this further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 an order of a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 30-3-1998 is assailed.
2. Through that order the learned Tribunal opined that the amendment in section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 introduced by Finance Act, 1996 could be applied to the case of the assessee though it pertained to tax adjustment for the period of January, 1995 to June, 1995. Reliance in that regard was placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Municipal Committee, Kasur v. Messrs Mehboob (1975 SCMR 180).
3. The respondent is an assessee of the Sales Tax Department was proceeded -against on the ground of its having wrongly claimed adjustment of input tax to the tune of Rs.34.41,434 during the January, 1995 to June, 1995 on the entire raw material purchased production. The department was of the view that such adjustment allowable only proportionate to the quantity of raw material consumed during each month which was the tax period and not in anticipation future consumption.
4. The assessee failed before the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal, as said above, considering the aforesaid amendment to be procedural in nature reached the conclusion that it could be made applicable to the period before the amendment on account of its being beneficial to the subject. Particularly for the reason that its appeal was still pending and therefore, the assessee was entitled to its benefit. 4-A. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are not inclined to entertain the appeal for two reasons firstly, that in substance the adjustment of input tax by the assessee during High Court aforesaid period caused no prejudice the interest of the Revenue. Secondly, the learned counsel for the assessee is correct in pointing out that the amendment introduced in section 7(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by Finance Act, 1996 was not only clarificatory but also curative in nature.' Therefore, the ratio settled in re: Prime Commercial Bank and others v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tai 1997 PTD 605 is attracted to the facts in hand. Learned counsel for the assessee is also correct in pointing out that if the departmental interpretation is accepted then the provision of section 10 of Sales Tax Act providing for adjustment and refund would be rendered superfluous.
5. That being so no case for interference is made out: This appeal shall be dismissed in limine. S.A.K./C-206/L Appeal dismissed.