2008 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Farrukh Mahmud, Member (Judicial) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 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 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Farrukh Mahmud, Member (Judicial).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik M. Arshad for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.7, 8(1)(a) & 46
Claim for-Appellant being a manufacturer of cotton yarn, claimed input tax of certain goods for which he was not entitled due to the fact; that goods in question were not used for the manufacturing/production of taxable goods in terms of S.8(1)(a) of Sales Tax Act, 1990; or were prohibited claiming input tax vide Notification dated 12-6-1998
Said irregularity resulted in short payment of sales tax
Recovery of amount along with additional tax and penalty was ordered--Appeal had been filed by the appellant against said order
Collector (Appeals), after detailed discussion, had found that spare parts pertained to generators, but according to Notification only those generators, which had capacity of 250 KV or above were allowed for input tax
No clear cut distinction was shown by appellant that said spare parts were necessarily used in generators leaving capacity of 250 KV or above
No fault lay with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL):--This appeal has been directed against order in Appeal. No. 4 of 2006, whereby Order-in-Original No. 135 of 2006 has been upheld.
2. Briefly stated facts are that appellant is a manufacturer of cotton yarn, who claimed input tax of, certain goods for which he was not entitled due to the fact that goods in question were not used for the manufacturing/production of taxable goods in terms of section, 8(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, or were prohibited claiming input tax vide S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998. This irregularity resulted in short payment of sales tax amounting to Rs.5,62,
243. On the basis of above facts, a show-cause notice was issued, and the matter when came up before the learned adjudicating officer, it was held that there are 18 items out of 50 items, as pointed out in the audit report, against which the input tax adjustment is not admissible, hence recovery of Rs.1,20,351 along with additional tax and penalty of Rs.5,000 was ordered. Appeal against the said order failed, hence instant appeal.
3. The respondent was issued notice `many a times, but nobody appeared on their behalf, hence respondent is proceeded ex parte.
4. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of appellant has advanced ex parte arguments. It is contended by the learned counsel that the spare parts have not been specifically mentioned in S.R.O. 578(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998, hence the appellant is entitled to claim input tax adjustment.
5. The record has been carefully perused. The learned Collector (Appeals), after detailed discussion, has held that spare parts pertain to generators, but according to S.R.O. 578(I)/98 only those generators, which have capacity of 250KV or above are allowed for input tax. There is no clear-cut distinction shown by the appellant that these spare parts are necessarily used in the generators having capacity of 250KV or above. The learned counsel, even at this stage, could not prove the use of spare parts for generator having capacity of 250KV or above. In view of this, I do not find any fault with the findings of the learned Collector (Appeals). The appeal thus fails and is hereby rejected. H.B.T./144/Tax (Trib.) Appeal rejected.