2017 PLP 1253 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II Versus Messrs FECTO SUGAR MILLS LTD.,
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1253 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh High Court |
| Bench Members | Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Arshad Hussain Khan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II Versus Messrs FECTO SUGAR MILLS LTD., |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1253 (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 1253 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Arshad Hussain Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1253 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II Versus Messrs FECTO SUGAR MILLS LTD.,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.11, 8, 47 & Sched.
Sales tax on sale/disposal of assets
Scope
Department impugned order of Appellate Tribunal whereby it was held that the taxpayer was entitled to exemption from sales tax on sales of assets other than those falling under Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Perusal of record revealed that the Commissioner without examining the nature of assets of taxpayer or ascertainment as to whether any input adjustment was claimed by the taxpayer on such assets during the relevant period, charged sales tax on sale of fixed assets on the pretext that disposal of assets attracted the imposition of sales tax under Ss. 11(2) & 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Recovery proceedings against taxpayer, in the present case, were also time-barred for the reason that assets were sold during the financial year 2008-2009 whereas under S.11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, limitation period was five years from the relevant date, which period of limitation in the present case expired on 30.6.2013
No illegality existed in the order of the Appellate Tribunal
Reference was answered, accordingly.