2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Anjum Alvi and Hassan Anwari for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 2nd Appeal, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 6, 7, 11, 22 & 26
Tax was levied on the basis of photo copies of invoices, provided by the informer, allegedly issued by the appellant to show that it had made supplies to unregistered- person, collected sales tax but did not deposit the same in the treasury-- Validity
Appellant was not confronted with any original record during the adjudication proceedings and reference to invoices was incorrectly made in the order
On several requests by the Appellate Tribunal, Department failed to produce the same
In the absence of original record Appellate Tribunal was not in a position to finally determine as to whether findings of the Adjudicating Officer were based on any record or not and for same reason as, to whether the reference to original invoices was factually correct or not
In order to safeguard the interest of both the sides, Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the same for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which they may like to produce. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Riaz Hussain Tahir, S.A.
Judgment & Decree
3. The learned Adjudicating Officer after hearing the parties and examining the record held that charge raised in the show-cause notice as proved for the reason that:-- (i) sale to unregistered persons was recorded in all the months of the year except for August, 1999; (ii) description of goods, brand name of taxable supplies and computer code printed on the suspected supplies tallied with other invoices issued by the appellant during the other months of 1999 except for August, 1999; (iii) the original invoices produced during the proceedings were genuine.
4. The appellant was thus directed to pay the amount of sales tax demanded in the show-cause notice alongwith additional tax and penalty equal to 50% of the tax involved under section 33(4). Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments on 21-2-2002 submitted that the appellant was not confronted with any original record during the adjudication proceedings and that the reference to the invoices had been incorrectly made. On the basis of these submissions, it was considered necessary that the department should produce the original record which formed basis of the impugned order. The department was, therefore, directed to produce the same on 4-3-2002. On the request of the learned D.R. made on 1-3-2002, the department was allowed to produce the said record on 21-3-2002, failing which the appeal was to be decided on the basis of available record. The learned D.R. however, did not produce the required record vide orders, dated 21-2-2002 and 4-3-2002, even on 21-3-2002 and instead requested for more time to produce the record. His request was granted after observing that although there was no justification for any further adjournment yet keeping in view the larger interests of justice between the parties another opportunity to produce the record was allowed with the direction that if record was not produced on 2-4-200 2, then the appeal would be disposed of on the basis of available record.
6. The learned D.R. failed to produce the record even today.
7. We have heard the parties and have also gone through the record made available with the appeal file.
8. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel on 21-2-2002, that the-appellant was not confronted with any original record during the adjudication proceedings and that the reference to the invoice was incorrectly made in the impugned order, we had asked for the production of the original record but the department failed to produce the same on 4-3-2002 And 1-3-2002 and even today. In the absence of this record, we are not in a position to finally determine as to whether the findings of 'the learned Adjudicating Officer are based on any record or not and for the same reason we cannot say as to whether the reference to the original invoices in the order under. challenge is factually correct or not. This being the position and in order to safeguard the interest of both the sides, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the learned Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties arid after receiving the evidence which they may like to produce. C.M.A./746/Tax (Trib.) Case remanded,