2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)

The above titled miscellaneous applications seeking grant of stay against recovery of tax demand as well as appeals against the order of Commissioner IR (Appeals), Faisalabad dated 3-7-2012 have been filed at the instant of the registered person. The representatives on behalf of rival parties are present. Hence, the same are disposed off as under.

2. We take up the appeals of the registered person first, whereby the refusal of stay against recovery of tax demand has been agitated.

3. The facts in brief leading to the instant appeals are that order-in-original in the case in hand for the period under consideration were passed by Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad on 30-7-2012 by computing tax liability of the registered person at Rs.406,717, Rs.281,492, Rs.589,135, Rs.302,006, Rs.916,038, Rs.4,789,443 and Rs.234,903 for the periods June, 2010, October, 2010, November, 2011, December, 2010, February, 2011, March, 2011 and July, 2010 respectively. Feeling aggrieved, appeals were preferred before the first appellate authority. During the pendency of first appeals before Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), the registered person filed application for grant of stay against recovery of impugned tax demand, which was refused. Still Discontented, the registered person has come up in appeal before this Tribunal along with Miscellaneous Application seeking grant of stay.

4. The learned counsel has termed the action of first appellate authority to be arbitrary. He has elaborated his view point by maintaining that while rejecting the stay application filed by the registered person, the learned CIR(Appeals) has failed to pass a speaking order. The appellant has a prima facie arguable case with every likelihood of success and balance of convenience also leans in its favour. Moreover, if the department is not restrained from recovery of the disputed amount, it will cause irreparable loss. Learned counsel further contends that findings of the learned CIR(A) are devoid of any plausible reason. In support of his assertions he relied on the following reported judgment:-- (i) PLD 2003 SC 344, (ii) 2005 PTD 165, (iii) 1996 CLC 507, (iv) 2006 PTD 670, (v) 2003 PTD 1664, (vi) 2008 PTD 1, (vii) 2002 PTD 679, (vii) 1991 PTD 872 and (ix) 2012 PTD (Trib.) 941.

On the strength of above mentioned reported judgments, he prays grant of stay.

5. On the other hand, learned DR appearing on behalf of the department has fully supported the impugned orders simply by contending that CIR(Appeals) is competent to reject such applications without assigning any reason.

6. We have heard the arguments advanced by rival parties and also carefully gone through the relevant record as well as reported judgments referred before us. We find ourselves in agreement with the assertions made by learned counsel, which are forceful. In such like situation, in our considered opinion, the registered person deserves for such relief as applied for grant of stay. Therefore, we vacate the impugned orders for all the periods under consideration and department is restrained from recovery of disputed tax demand for a period of 30 days or decision of appeal by CIR(A), whichever is earlier. The learned CIR(A) is also directed to preferably decide the pending appeals of the appellant at the earliest possible.

7. Since, the appeals of the registered person have been disposed of and department has been restrained from recovery of tax demand, therefore, miscellaneous applications seeking stay against recovery of tax demand also become infructuous. CMA/158/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.