2014 PLP 1530 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Rana RIASAT TUFAIL and others
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1530 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Mrs. Ayesha A. Malik and Shams Mahmood Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Rana RIASAT TUFAIL and others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1530 (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 2014 PLP 1530 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Mrs. Ayesha A. Malik and Shams Mahmood Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1530 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Rana RIASAT TUFAIL and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Appellant.
- Sh. Shoaib Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 6 & 73
Sales Tax Rules, 2006. R. 12(5)
Entitlement to
Invoices of blacklisted entities/units
Tax authorities contended that respondent was not entitled to refund on the invoices of certain blacklisted units
Respondent was initially allowed to claim refund by tax authorities, which order was never challenged and had attained finality
Blacklisting of units was subsequent to the period for which refund was being claimed
At the time of the transaction the units/entities in question were admittedly not blacklisted
Presently there was no final order against the blacklisted units
Single Judge of High Court had rightly allowed respondent to claim refund for the invoices of units in question
Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Through this ICA, the appellant has impugned the order dated 10-6-2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.
2. The basic grievance of the appellant is that the respondent was not entitled to the refund claimed by it for the tax period June, 2001. Learned counsel argued that the learned Single Judge in Chamber failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No.1 has claimed refund on the invoices of blacklisted units which is in violation of sections 6 and 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Rule 12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the blacklisting of the entitles against whom the refund was claimed was subsequent to the period for which the refund was claimed. He further argued that the petitioner is entitled to the refund as even today there is no final order issued by the appellant with respect to the three units that have been blacklisted. The respondents filed an input refund claim for the tax period June, 2001 against 19 suppliers. Out of these the appellant did not issue refund against three entities, who was stated to be blacklisted.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
5. We have reviewed the impugned order wherein it has been held that withholding of the refund claim against three entities is without any legal justification because the respondents were allowed the refund claim on 5th of April, 2008, which order has never been challenged and has attained finality. Nothing has been argued before use to show how this finding of the learned Single Judge in Chamber is illegal or contrary to the record. Furthermore, the blacklisting order is subsequent to the period for which refund is being claimed. At the time of the transaction the three entities were admittedly not blacklisted. Also there is no final order even today against the three blacklisted units. Therefore, no case for interference is made out.
6. In the light of the aforesaid, this ICA is dismissed. MWA/C-8/L Appeal dismissed.