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 | (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), (b) 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
- Hashmat Ali for Appellant.
- Imran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3A(2)
Turnover tax
Appellant admittedly did not apply for registration under the turnover tax regime as required under subsection (2) or 3(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
In absence of any application for registration under the Turnover Tax Scheme, the appellant could not claim benefit of the said scheme.
S. 3
Adjudicating Officer reduced the amount of sales tax by accepting the plea of the appellant that sales tux was to be charged on actual value of the supply and not on the volume of the total "project cost"--Appellant contended that he could not pay the same as the Department, to whom supply was made, did not pay the amount of sales fax involved
Appellant, admittedly, was registered with the Sales Tax Department and could not be de-registered before the expiry of two years from the date of registration
Adjudicating Officer passed a balanced and speaking order keeping in view all the relevant provisions of law
While maintaining the order to the extent of sales tax alongwith additional tax, Appellate Tribunal remitted the amount of penalty as the conduct of the appellant was not such as to invite its imposition
Order was modified accordingly by the Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
2. The appellant was awarded a contract by Public Health Engineering Department. Lahore, for Drainage Sewerage Scheme of Yazman Part 1 (providing laying of main sewerage line).
3. Allegedly the appellant manufactured and supplied RCC Pipes to the Public Health Engineering Department for Sewerage Scherrie at Yazma as per the following details contained in para 1 of the impugned order:-- "(i) 33Dta. 503 Rft. 457.38 Per Rft. Rs.230,062 Value (ii) 30" 3249" 415.80" Rs.1350934" (iii) 24" 1686" 195.20' Rs.329107" (iv) 18" 1654" 115.95" Rs.191781" (v) 15" 756" 97.86" Rs.73982" (vi) 12" 7765" 75.98" Rs.589985"
4. The charge against the appellant was that it had failed to deposit the amount of Rs.4,97,858 on account of sales tax which was recoverable alongwith additional tax. The Senior. Auditor, Sales Tax, Rahim Yar Khan prepared a contravention report on the basis of which the learned Adjudicating Officer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant requiring it to explain as to why the amount of Rs.4,97,858 alongwith additional tax, be not recovered and why penalty action be not taken.
5. The appellant resisted the show-cause notice on the ground that the unit was registered with the Sales Tax Department on 14-4-2000; that the learned Adjudicating Officer illegally refused the appellant the facility to pay turn-over tax @ 2% of the value of the supply because the total turnover of the appellant was Rs.17,23,626.00 which was less than 2.5 Million, that the sales tax was not to be charged on the total value of production but was to be levied on the value of supply; and that since the Public Health Engineering Department did not pay the amount, of sales tax involved despite repeated requests, therefore, the appellant could not pay the same.
6. The learned Adjudicating Officer after considering the stand taken by the appellant concluded that the appellant could not opt for payment of turnover tax as the earlier registration could not be withdrawn unless expiry of two years as laid down under section 18(2) of the Act. The learned Adjudicating Officer agreed with the, appellant that the sales tax was to be charged on actual value of the supply and not on the volume of the total "project cost" and reduced the. amount of sales tax from Rs.4,97,858 to Rs.2,24,820 with a direction to the appellant to pay the same alongwith additional tax and penalty of Rs.11,241.
7. During the course of the arguments, it was' admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it did no apply for registration under the turnover tax regime as required under subsection (2) or 3(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. In the absence of any application for registration under the Turnover Tax Scheme, the appellant could not claim benefit of the said scheme. This is also an admitted position that the appellant was duly registered with the Sales Tax Department on 14-4-2000 and could not be de-registered before expiry of two years from the date of registration. The learned Adjudicating Officer has, therefore, passed a balanced and speaking order keeping in view all the relevant provisions of law. While maintaining the impugned order to the extent of sales tax amounting to Rs.2,28,820 alongwith additional tax we remit the amount of penalty amounting to Rs11,241 as the conduct of the appellant was not such as to invite its imposition. The appeal partly succeeds as indicated above and the impugned order is modified accordingly. C.M.A./743/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.