2017 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Messrs PESHAWAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., PESHAWAR Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., PESHAWAR
| Citation | 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Shahid Masood Manzar, Judicial Member and Muhammad Riaz, Accountant Member |
| Parties | Messrs PESHAWAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., PESHAWAR Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., PESHAWAR |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (Trib (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 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Shahid Masood Manzar, Judicial Member and Muhammad Riaz, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD) (Messrs PESHAWAR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., PESHAWAR Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., PESHAWAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hussain Ahmed Sherazi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 11, 25, 33, 36 & 46
Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 Chapter XI
SRO No.555(I)/96, dated 1-7-1996
Recovery of tax not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded
Audit report had revealed that appellant Electric Supply Company, had Collected Sales Tax at Rs.6 per unit of electricity consumed from steel melters, but adjusted the same against its input tax
Assessing Officer ordered recovery under Ss.11(2) & 36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, along with default surcharge and penalty
Said order of Assessing Officer was upheld by appellate authority
Contention of appellant company was that impugned show-cause notice was hit by S.R.O. No.555(I)/96, dated 1-7-1996, which provided a maximum pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.1 million, in case of Adjudicating Authority was valid
Said notification was in the field when the show-cause notice was issued
Show-cause notice issued in excess of the monetary limits prescribed by S.R.O. No.555(I)/96, dated 1-7-1996 during its (notification's) validity period were unlawful
Orders passed without jurisdiction would be non est in the eyes of law and transgression of pecuniary jurisdiction, would render entire exercise of authority to be void ab initio and illegal
Impugned assessment order and order-in-appeal, were held to be void on that legal ground
Case was finalized in 184 days; whereas S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, provided a maximum of 30 days to be deducted from the specific period on account of adjustment; while the Commissioner Inland Revenue for reason to be recorded, could extend that period for 60 days
Contention of appellant that order of Commissioner Inland Revenue, extending period to decide by 60 day, did not find mention in the impugned assessment order and in impugned order-in-appeal was right
Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 provided a period of 120 days, which could be stretched by another 30 days
(one hundred and fifty days)
Matter in the present case was decided in 184 days
Assessment order, in circumstances, was held to be hit by limitation rendering the same void under S.11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990