1987 PLP 85 (SCMR)
SALES TAX OFFICER and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 85 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SALES TAX OFFICER and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 85 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 85 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 85 (SCMR) (SALES TAX OFFICER and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy Attorney‑‑General for Pakistan (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5‑7‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 183 of 1983). ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Sales Tax Act (III of 1951), Ss. 19(4) & 27(2)‑ Refund of sales tax‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of‑‑Assessee's demand for refund of sales tax for several assessment years accepted by Appellate Tribunal‑‑ Assessee refusing to produce records for verification of amount claimed to be refunded on plea that Tribunal's orders implied that refund was to be made without verification‑‑High Court upholding decision of Appellate Tribunal that order of refund of sales tax implied that refund would be without verification‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that question of verification of claim and determination of amount to be refunded in accordance with prescribed procedure, was not examined nor decided in first round of litigation, and whether High Court should have interfered in its discretionary jurisdiction, in case it was found just and fair that assessee should have responded to a call for verification of its claim as to exact amount to be refunded.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court, Munir A. Shaikh, Deputy Attorney‑‑General for Pakistan (absent) and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 5‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the respondent's constitutional petition arising out of their demand for the refund of sales tax for several assessment years, was allowed. The Sales‑tax Officer, petitioner No. 1, rejected the claim of the respondent for refund of sales tax for the years 1971‑72 to 1974‑
75. The dispute went up to the Appellate Tribunal which directed the refund. None challenged the orders of the Tribunal and they became final. When, however, the petitioner No. 1 asked the respondent to produce the records for verification of the amount claimed to be refunded, it refused to do so on the plea that the Tribunal's orders implied that the refund was to be made without verification of the amount claimed to have been paid as sales‑tax. A second round of appeals upto the Tribunal ended in the verdict against the petitioner. It was found that the final orders in the earlier round implied that the refund would be without verification. The High Court also held it so. Therefore, the petitioners have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has taken us through the various orders passed in the two rounds of litigation. Prima facie, there seems force in the contention that the question of verification of claim and determination of the amount to be refunded in accordance with the prescribed procedure, was not examined nor decided in the first round of litigation. The question of verification raised in this petition as also the question whether the High Court should have interfered in its discretionary jurisdiction, in case it is found just and fair that the respondent should have responded to a call for verification of its claim as to the exact amount to be refunded, need examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. M.I. Leave granted.