1987 PLP 1398 (SCMR)
SALES TAX OFFICER, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL BODY BUILDERS, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LAHORE and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1398 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SALES TAX OFFICER, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL BODY BUILDERS, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LAHORE and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1398 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1398 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1398 (SCMR) (SALES TAX OFFICER, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs INTERNATIONAL BODY BUILDERS, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LAHORE and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. l.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑5‑1979 in Writ Petition No.68 of 1972). ‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sales tax, imposition of‑‑Assessment of sales tax challenged on ground that provisions of Sales tax Act were not applicable to respondents business of construction and repair of bus and truck bodies where chassis were supplied by customers and bodies thereon were constructed by them with their own labour and material‑‑High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction remanding case to Appellate Tribunal for determining whether said business was of sale of goods or a contract for work‑‑Order impugned by Sales Tax Officer‑‑Question raised in High Court being of a basic nature which ought to have been determined first by sales tax authorities before saddling respondents with liability to pay sales tax, no fault, held, could be found with order of remand made by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 9‑5‑1979 in Writ Petition No.68 of 1972.
2. Respondent No. l is engaged in the business of construction and repair of bus and truck bodies. The chassis are supplied by the customers and the bodies thereon are constructed by it with its own labour and material. The Sales‑tax Officer called upon it to pay sales‑tax In respect of the bodies constructed by it for its customers. It challenged the assessment made by the Sales‑tax Officer in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. One of the grounds taken by it was that it was not selling any goods to its customers and as such the provisions of Sales‑tax were not applicable to its business. This contention was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who then after some modifications maintained the order of assessment. Respondent No. l then preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal wherein it agitated the same legal objection but without any success. It then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court took the view that the business of respondent No. l could be categorized as either the sale of goods or a contract for the performance of work: if it fell in the former category respondent No. 1 was liable to pay sales‑tax but if it fell in the latter category it was not liable to pay any sales‑tax: further, it needed an inquiry to find out in which category the business of respondent No. l fell. In this view of the matter the High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal with the direction that it should first decide on the basis of the agreement or other facts before it whether the business of respondent No. l was of sale of goods or a contract for work. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this order of remand.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. The question raised in the High Court was of a basic nature and it ought to have been determined by the sales‑tax authorities before saddling respondent No. l with the liability to pay sales‑tax. As this basic question was not determined by the Appellate Tribunal no fault can be found with the order oil remand made by the High Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M. I. /S‑38/S Petition dismissed.