2002 PLP 1033 (PTD)
Messrs COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX Versus Messrs MUNAF LACE and another
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1033 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Roshan Essani and Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX Versus Messrs MUNAF LACE and another |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1033 (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 2002 PLP 1033 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Roshan Essani and Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1033 (PTD) (Messrs COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX Versus Messrs MUNAF LACE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ms. Masooda Siraj for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th December, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 47‑‑‑Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.136‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.96‑‑‑Central Excises Act (I of 1944), S.36‑C‑‑‑Appeal/ Reference to High Court‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Nature‑‑‑Only such questions of law could be raised before High Court in appeal/reference, which had been agitated/raised before Appellate Tribunal and findings thereon had been given by the Tribunal‑‑‑Points not raised before the Tribunal could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in High' Court.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Whether the Tribunal i.e. respondent No. 2 is justified in passing the impugned order, dated 21‑6‑2000? (2) Whether the respondent No.l is not engaged in manufacturing of laces and braids and supplying their products since 1996 without Sales Tax Registration' under section 14 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990? (3) Whether the respondent No.l, has violated the provisions of sections 3, 6, 14, 15, 22, 23 and 26 of the Sales' Tax Act, 1990? (4) Whether the provisions of section 15(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are not attracted to the respondent No. 1? (5) Whether the respondent No. 1 can be penalized under section 37(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990? (6) Whether the respondent No.l has evaded the Sales Tax amounting to Rs. 2,50,000 deliberately? Heard Ms. Masooda Siraj, learned counsel for the appellant. An appeal under section 47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, lies to the High Court in respect of any question of law arising out of order under section 46, i.e. by the Appellate Tribunal. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show that the questions proposed on behalf of appellant fulfil‑these two conditions. The‑ learned counsel is not able to show that the questions proposed are the questions of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Some questions proposed, are in general terms and remaining are either question of facts or question of law, which do not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We asked learned counsel for the appellant to show the that points, which are sought to be agitated through the proposed questions, were raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has given any finding on such points. She has conceded that neither the questions of law proposed before us were raised before the Tribunal nor there is any finding on such questions. By now, it is established proposition that in the Appeal/Reference arising out of appeals under the Sales Tax Act. Customs Act, Excise Act and Income Tax Ordinance, only such questions of law can be raised before the High Court, which were raised/agitated before the Appellate Tribunal and any finding thereon is given by the Tribunal. If certain points were not raised before the Tribunal, they cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the High Court. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is not maintainable, as the condition for the maintainability of appeal has not been fulfilled. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly, in limine, alongwith listed application. S.A.K./C‑41/K Appeal dismissed.