2004 PLP 1809 (PTD)
Messrs CH. FABRICS PVT. LTD., HATTAR Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1809 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Messrs CH. FABRICS PVT. LTD., HATTAR Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1809 (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 2004 PLP 1809 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1809 (PTD) (Messrs CH. FABRICS PVT. LTD., HATTAR Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajjad Ahmad Chaudhry alongwith S.K. Jodoon for Petitioner.
- Ziaullah Shams, Assistant Collector, Sales Tax and Bakht Dauran, Senior Auditor, Sales Tax, Peshawar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 3‑1(A), 3‑b(1) & 34‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)‑‑‑Scope of tax‑‑‑Input tax adjustment‑‑‑Sales tax was collected by WAPDA on electricity bill‑‑ Input tax adjustment was claimed‑‑‑Credit of such collected sales tax was subsequently given by WAPDA and taxpayer accordingly did not reduce the same from input tax which caused short payment‑‑‑Demand of such principal amount alongwith additional tax‑‑‑Principal amount was paid alongwith part payment of addition tax‑‑‑In respect of remaining part payment of additional tax, assessee contended that WAPDA was responsible for payment of .sales tax instead of refunding the same and thus he was not responsible to pay additional tax‑‑‑Such fractional amount of additional tax was demanded by a non‑speaking order‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Order was not a speaking order rather, it could hardly be considered as order‑‑ ‑Adjudication Officer had not given any consideration to the arguments of the complainant submitted in reply to the show‑cause notice‑‑ ‑Order‑in‑original was not a valid order and the charge of additional tax created could not be considered a legal charge‑‑ Order was arbitrary and contrary to law‑‑‑Maladministration was established‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the demand of addition of Rs.14,757 created against the complainant be deleted and the amount of Rs.14,769 additionally paid by the complainant be refunded to him.
Judgment & Decree
5. Representatives of both sides have been heard. The AR of the complainant further submitted that the Adjudication Authority has not considered the argument put forth by him. As per record the complainant had submitted the following reply to the show‑cause notice: (i) In term of section 3‑1(A), the payment of sale tax is the responsibility of the supplier and the recipient is in no way responsible for payment of sales tax. Hence the demand raised in the show‑cause notice is not legal. (ii) Our unit has neither adjusted nor claimed refund from the department hence under no letter of Sales Tax law, the recipient of supply is held liable for payment of sales tax or additional tax. (iii) It is not duty cast on the unit to have enquired from WAPDA as to why they have refunded the amount on their own accord without informing the unit about particulars of sales tax refund. (iv) In terms of section 30b(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 WAPDA was responsible to pay; the amount of tax collected in excess to the Federal Government instead of refunding the same in the unit. The Adjudication Officer after reproducing the complainant's reply as well as the rejoinder of the sales tax audit department passed the following order as per para. 7 of the order‑in‑original:‑‑ "I have gone through the case record and considered the oral as well as written submissions of the unit and the sales tax department. The unit has already deposited the principal amount of sales tax alongwith the additional tax and now only a fractional amount is outstanding. The unit is therefore, directed to deposit the same additional tax to be calculated till the actual date of deposit."
6. The above order is not a speaking order: Rather, it can hardly, be considered an order. The Adjudication Officer has not given any consideration to the arguments of the complainant submitted by him in reply to the show‑cause notice. The Order‑In‑Original is therefore, not a valid order and the charge of additional tax created thereby cannot be considered a legal charge.
7. In view of the factual and legal position as discussed above, the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to law. Maladministration is proved.
8. It is therefore, recommended that:‑‑ (i) The demand of addition of Rs.14,757 created against the complainant deleted. (ii) The amount of Rs.14,769 additional paid by the complainant be refunded to him. (iii) Compliance be made within 30 days. C.M.A./983/FTO Order accordingly