2003 PLP 2116 (PTD)
YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE Versus DEPUPTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2116 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE Versus DEPUPTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and another |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2116 (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 2116 (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 2116 (PTD) (YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS LTD., LAHORE Versus DEPUPTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7(2) & 47
Demand of sales tax alongwith additional tax and penalty due to non-availability of valid tax invoices and bills of entries
Tribunal after perusing record found that input tax adjustment was not supported by relevant documents
Such findings of Tribunal would not give rise to any question of law to be considered by High Court under S.47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990
Only on a question of law arising out of order of Tribunal a further appeal before High Court could be filed
Appeal was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
This further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 seeks to assail an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, dated 5-6-2003.
2. By way of an Order-in-Original recorded by Deputy Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication) Faisalabad the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs.687,934 as sales tax alongwith additional tax and penalty equal to 3 % of the amount of the tax involved. Earlier it was found on the report of another wing of the revenue that the appellant availed input tax adjustment to the tune of the aforesaid amount which was not supported by purchase register nor any valid tax invoiced/bill of entry as prescribed under section 7(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
3. Before the learned Tribunal the appellant contended that all relevant record including purchase register, tax invoices and bills of entries were duly shown to the audit authority and, therefore, the observations and sending , of the case for adjudication to the aforesaid authority was unjustified. Learned Tribunal rejected the submissions made in that regard. The relevant part of para-4 of the impugned order reads as under:-- "We have heard contentions of both the sides and perused the appeal file available before us. After scrutiny of the appellant's records for the period 1998-99 a team of the DRRA reported that valid tax invoices/bill of entry were not available against input tax adjustment of Rs.6,87,934 pertaining to the months of 8/98 to 11/98 and 1/99. On the appellant's insistence regarding availability of all the records/invoices, the Adjudicating Officer got the records rechecked and the Assistant Collector Sales Tax (Hqrs), Faisalabad reported that input tax adjustment amounting to R,s.12,46,632 during the months of 8/98 to 11/98 and 1/99 remained unverified on account of non-availability of tax invoices. Since the show-cause notice was only for an amount of Rs.6,87,934 the Adjudicating Officer adjudged liability against the appellant only to the said extent. Thus there was no contradiction between show-cause notice and the impugned order."
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are not persuaded to agree that the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal give rise to any question of law to be considered by this Court under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The findings of the Tribunal which were based upon the perusal of the record that the input adjustment of the aforesaid amount was not supported by relevant documents hardly give rise to a question of law.
5. It goes without saying that only .a question of law arising out of an order of the Tribunal can be a subject-matter of further appeal before this Court. Since no question of law arises out of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, we will refuse to entertain the appeal.
6. Dismissed in limine S.A.K./Y-29/L Appeal dismissed.