2005 PLP 2417 (PTD)
Messrs SHAHMURD SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Managing Director and others Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION) QUETTA, HYDERABAD and others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2417 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SHAHMURD SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Managing Director and others Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION) QUETTA, HYDERABAD and others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2417 (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 2005 PLP 2417 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2417 (PTD) (Messrs SHAHMURD SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Managing Director and others Versus ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION) QUETTA, HYDERABAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Appellants.
- Fariduddin for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th August, 2005.
- Mr. Fariddudin, Advocate is present for the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 46 & 47
Impugned order passed by the Tribunal showed that Tribunal had neither found the facts on record deficient in any manner nor any probe or factual inquiry was required enabling the Tribunal to effectively decide all the questions of fact and law raised before it
All the judicial/quasi-judicial forums were required to decide the issues of facts and law raised before them
Mere disposal of the matter was undesirable
Parties should not be sent back to the lower forums without proper justification thereby causing delay in the decision of the issues in controversy
All the points in the present case, before the Tribunal ought to have been considered and decided by the Tribunal instead of sending the matter back to the lower forum which had already given its finding on the relevant issues
Impugned order of remand passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court and the case was remanded to the Tribunal with direction to hear the appeals afresh and decide all the questions of facts and law by a speaking order. Shahab Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 PTD 463 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.
All the appeals are admitted to consider the following common question of law: "Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Hyderabad'?" Mr. Fariddudin, Advocate is present for the respondent. After perusal of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for remand of the case to the lower forum. All the points raised before the learned Tribunal ought to have been considered and decided by the Tribunal instead of sending the matter back to the lower forum which had already given its finding on the relevant issues. We are fortified in our view with the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shahab Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 PTD
463. It has been held in this judgment that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal instead of remanding the case ought to have decided the case itself on merits in accordance with law. It was further held that, although the Tribunal was empowered to remand the case to the lower forum but the case should be remanded where the Tribunal finds that certain facts require further elucidation or that some essential facts required for forming opinion are not on the A record of the case, it could certainly remand the case to Income Tax Officer for determining such facts and for passing afresh order. The remand of the case to the lower forums for fresh assessment as a matter of course was not approved. We are in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in the above judgment. On perusal of the impugned order passed by Tribunal, we find that while remanding the case the learned Members of the Tribunal have not found that either the facts on record were deficient in any manner or any probe or factual inquiry was required enabling the Tribunal to effectively decide all the questions of fact and law raised before it. All the judicial/quasi-judicial forums are required to decide the issues of facts and law raised before it. Mere disposal of the matter is undesirable. The parties should not be sent back to the lower forums without proper justification thereby causing delay in the decision of the issues in controversy. For the foregoing reasons, the question of law is answered in negative. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the B case is remanded back to the Tribunal with direction to hear the appeals afresh and decide all the questions of facts and law by a speaking order. All the Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. M.B.A./S-134/K Order accordingly.