2004 PLP 2249 (PTD)
PATTOKI SUGAR MILL Versus THE COLLECTOR
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2249 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | PATTOKI SUGAR MILL Versus THE COLLECTOR |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2249 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2249 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2249 (PTD) (PATTOKI SUGAR MILL Versus THE COLLECTOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R.84 & Form IV‑‑‑Payment of defaulted amount‑‑‑According to R.84 and Form‑IV of Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992, a registered person was required to be allowed at least 15 days time to snake payment of defaulted amount and it was only in case of default after expiry of that period that concerned Authority could impose embargo‑‑ Since said requirement of law and rules had, not been complied with, embargo imposed by way of impugned order, was declared to be illegal. Ejaz Ahmad Awan for Applicant. Maqsood Ahmed Butt for Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑R.84 & Form IV‑‑‑Payment of defaulted amount‑‑‑According to R.84 and Form‑IV of Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992, a registered person was required to be allowed at least 15 days time to snake payment of defaulted amount and it was only in case of default after expiry of that period that concerned Authority could impose embargo‑‑ Since said requirement of law and rules had, not been complied with, embargo imposed by way of impugned order, was declared to be illegal. Ejaz Ahmad Awan for Applicant. Maqsood Ahmed Butt for Revenue. NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of these applications by declaring that the impugned notice, dated 22‑7‑2002 imposing an embargo on the appellant, Messrs Pattoki Sugar Mills, Kasur is not in accordance with the format and the requirements of Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992.
2. According to Form‑IV of the said Rules read with Rule 84 thereof a registered person. is required to be allowed at least 15 day's time to make payment of defaulted amount and it is only in, case of default after the expiry of that period that the concerned authorities can impose embargo. Since that requirement of law and the rules have not been complied with, therefore the embargo imposed by way of the impugned order is declared to be illegal. However, this order will not restrain the department to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the aforesaid law and the procedure laid therein.