2012 PLP 1092 (PTD)
Before Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, JJ COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs CRESENT TEXTILE MILLS and others
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1092 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, JJ COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE |
| Parties | Before Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, JJ COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs CRESENT TEXTILE MILLS and others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1092 (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 2012 PLP 1092 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, JJ COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1092 (PTD) (Before Umar Ata Bandial and Muhammad Farrukh Irfan Khan, JJ COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Messrs CRESENT TEXTILE MILLS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.36(3)
Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded
Order passed beyond the time limit prescribed in the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Contention of the appellant (department) was that time stipulation under S.36(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not mandatory as no consequence of default is provided therein
Validity--Adjudication authority could not pass order under S.36(3) of the Sales. Tax Act, 1990, beyond the time limit prescribed under the said Act
Judgments of the High Court on the point involved were under appeal before the Supreme Court, therefore, on grounds of consistency and propriety, present case decided in. the light of the said judgments of the High Court and subject to the final ruling by the Supreme Court in the pending appeals
Reference was answered in the negative. Messrs Meraj Din through Partner v. Collector Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals), Lahore and 2 others 2009 PTD 2004; Messrs Tanveer Weaving Mills through Director Finance v. Deputy Collector Sales Tax and 4 others 2009 PTD 762 and Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwal and another 2008 PTD 60 ref. Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
The question arising for determination in this reference is "Whether the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Lahore Bench Lahore is justified in holding that adjudication authority can pass ) order under section 36(3) of the Sales Act, 1990 beyond the time limit prescribed under the said Act?"
2. The above question has been answered in the 'negative by this Court in Messrs Meraj Din through Partner v. Collector Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals), Lahore and 2 others (2009 PTD 2004); Messrs Tanveer Weaving Mills through Director Finance v. Deputy Collector Sales Tax and 4 others (2009 PTD 762) and Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwal and another (2008 PTD 60).
3. The learned counsel for the applicant department submits that the time stipulation under section 36(3) ibid is not mandatory as no consequence of default is provided therein. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant is addressed in the above noted judgments already given by this Court. The said judgments are under appeal before the honourable Supreme Court. Accordingly, on the ground 'of consistency and propriety, this matter ought to be decided in the light of the said judgments and subject to the final rule laid by the honourable Supreme Court in the pending appeals. The reference is answered in the negative. M.W.A./C-6/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.