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
- Ch. Abdul Waheed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 34
Excess input tax
Deduction from such refund on account of additional tax and against invoice
Validity-- Admittedly order was an ex parte order and the same was cyclostyled pro forma wherein some entries had been filled in with ball point pencil-- Adjudicating Officer signed the order which was prepared by the office without applying his independent judicial mind to the facts involved-- Department did not offer, any explanation as to how and under what circumstances, the additional tax and amount against invoice had been deducted
No show-cause notice was issued
No material was brought on record to show that these deductions were made on the basis of admission or were due on account of any proper and legal adjudication orders
Order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence, which they may like to produce. Rana Shabbir Ahmad, S.A.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Shabbir Ahmad, S.A. Date of hearing: 18th March, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).
This appeal is directed. against the Order-in- Original No. 824 of 2000, dated 15-5-2000 passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Sales Tax, Multan.
2. The appellant submitted a claim for refund of excess input tax amounting to Rs. 7,37,582 vide return cum payment challan filed for the tax period of February, 2000. The learned Adjudicating Officer without hearing the appellant but after scrutiny of the record added with the refund claims auctioned refund of Rs.6,67,587 and deducted an amount of Rs.34,244 as additional tax and Rs.38,997 against Invoice No.25, dated 18-12-1999. About these two amounts totalling Rs.73,241 a cheque was issued in favour of the learned Collector, Sales Tax, Multan and cheque for sanctioned refund of Rs:5,94,346 was issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant has challenged these deductions, through the instant appeal which was reported to be barred by time by the Assistant Registrar. The question of condonation of delay was considered and the same was resolved in favour of the appellant through interim order of today.
3. Admittedly the impugned order is an ex parte order. Admittedly, it is a cyclostyled pro forma wherein some, entries have been filled in-with ballpoint pencil. Prima-facie it shows that the learned Adjudicating Officer signed the order, which was prepared by the office without applying his independent judicial mind to the facts involved in the case.
4. The learned D.R. has riot been able to offer any explanation as to how and under what circumstances the two amounts of Rs. 34,244 and Rs.38,997 on account of additional tax and against Invoice No.25, dated 18-12-1999 have been deducted. He could not clarify as to whether any show-cause notice requiring the appellant to explain as to why these deductions may not be made was issued or not Similarly he could not bring on record any documents to show that these deductions were made on the basis of admission made by the appellant or were due on account of any proper and legal adjudication orders. All these facts need to be looked into by the learned Adjudicating Officer at the original stage. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision according with law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence, which they may like to produce. C.M.A./735/Tax(Trib.) Case remanded.