2020 PLP 382 (PTD)
Messrs ZAK RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE and others
| Citation | 2020 PLP 382 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ZAK RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE and others |
| Primary Law | (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 382 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 382 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Faisal Arab and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 382 (PTD) (Messrs ZAK RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Naeem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against judgment dated 11.04.2019 of Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in STR No. 25 of 2017)
S. 3(1A) [as existed prior to 01-07-2017]
Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, R. 58H
Steel-melter/Re-rolling mill
Taxable supplies made to unregistered persons
Levy of further sales tax under S. 3(1A) of Sales Tax Act, 1990
Payment of sales tax under a specific assessing procedure envisaged in R. 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, did not exempt or save the tax-payer from levy of further tax under S. 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
S. 47
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court
Pleas/arguments raised
Scope
Petitioner raised pleas/points before the Supreme Court which were not raised in the Reference application before the High Court nor were noted in the impugned judgment of the High Court
Such pleas were at best untested second thoughts
Under Art. 185(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dealt with (only) questions of law that had been urged before the forum below.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
The question in issue agitated before the learned three fora below is whether the Steel-melter/Re-rolling Mills which is chargeable to sales tax under the special procedure provided in Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 ("the Rules") is liable to the levy of further tax under section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("the Act"). The further tax is charged on supplies made by a registered person to unregistered persons. The learned three fora below have held that this charge applies squarely to all such supplies made by registered persons. Consequently, the payment of sales tax under a specific assessing procedure envisaged in Rule 58H of the Rules does not exempt or save the petitioner from levy of further tax under section 3(1A) of the Act.
2. The learned counsel in the first instance sought help from SRO No.585(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 to claim exemption of the petitioner from further tax. However, it transpired that the facts of this case pertain to the period prior to issuance of the said notification. Thereafter, he urged points which were not raised in the Reference application before the High Court nor are noted in the impugned judgment. Under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, we deal with questions of law that have been urged before the forum below. The arguments addressed are at best untested second thoughts.
3. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. MWA/Z-4/SC Leave refused.