2014 PLP 1063 (PTD)
Messrs ITTEFAQ CLOTH CENTRE, GUJRANWALA Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1063 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Waseem, Ch. Judicial Member |
| Parties | Messrs ITTEFAQ CLOTH CENTRE, GUJRANWALA Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1063 (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 2014 PLP 1063 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Waseem, Ch. Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1063 (PTD) (Messrs ITTEFAQ CLOTH CENTRE, GUJRANWALA Versus C.I.R., R.T.O., GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taimour Kamal Malik, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st December, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
S.46
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.131(5)
Taxpayer contended that department was pressing hard for recovery and had issued notice showing intention to take coercive measures for the recovery of the outstanding tax demand; that in case the demand was not stayed, the taxpayer will suffer irreparable loss; and that taxpayer had full evidence to prove compliance of the law
Request for stay of demand was justified in circumstances
Recovery of tax demand was stayed by the Tribunal for a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order
Departmental order for recovery proceedings was vacated with the direction to the First Appellate Authority to preferably decide the pending appeal within 30 days as per law and facts of the case and till that time, the department was restrained from recovery proceedings
Application for stay was allowed without prejudice to the final outcome of the appeal which was pending before the First Appellate Authority. Khubaib Ahmad Taunsvi for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD WASEEM, (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
This miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant/registered person for grant of stay against the recovery of impugned tax demand as well as appeals against the order of CIR (Appeals), Gujranwala, agitating refusal of stay.
2. The A.R of the applicant stated that while rejecting the stay application filed by the registered person against impugned tax demand, the department has been pursuing the recovery of tax demand. It has been further submitted that the applicant had filed appeal before the learned CIR (Appeals) and the department is pressing hard for recovery and has issued notice showing intention to take coercive measures for the recovery of the outstanding tax demand. It is plea of the taxpayer that in case the demand is not stayed, the taxpayer will suffer irreparable loss. However, it is submission of the learned AR that they have full evidence to prove compliance of the said section.
3. The learned DR has opposed the application on the plea that in this case huge tax demand is outstanding.
4. Heard. We have given due consideration to the arguments of both parties and feel that the request for stay of demand is justified in the present circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the recovery of the impugned tax demand is stayed for a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, we vacate the impugned order with the direction to the learned CIR(Appeals) to preferably decide the pending appeal of the applicant within 30 days as per law and facts of the case and till that time, the department is restrained from recovery proceedings.
5. The application for stay is allowed without prejudice to the final outcome of the appeal which is pending before the learned CIR(Appeals), Gujranwala.
6. Copy of this order should also be sent to the CIR(Appeals), Gujranwala. CMA/4/Tax(Trib.) Stay application allowed.