1968 SCMR 528 (PLP)
SHAIKH YUSUF ALI SONS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SALES TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 528 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAIKH YUSUF ALI SONS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SALES TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 528 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 528 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 528 (PLP) (SHAIKH YUSUF ALI SONS LTD.-Petitioner Versus SALES TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Advooate Supreme Court instructed by Salahuddin, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 10th August 1967, in Petition No, 310 of 1967). Sales tax-Exemption claimed on ground that goods (surgical bandages and absorbent cotton) were "surgical instruments" and as such exempted-High Court disposing of writ by short order "we do not see way to agree with learned cout4e1"-Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The petitioner, a private limited Company, has been assessed to Sales Tax on sales of surgical bandages and absorbent cotton manufactured and sold by them. They sought to gain exemption on the ground that these goods came under the description of "drugs", and by an order of the 24th March 1966, the Central Board of Revenue granted this exemption. The Sales Tax authorities, however, allowed the exemption only from the date of this order. The Company then moved a writ in the High- Court seeking exemption on the ground inter die that the goods in question fall under the description of "surgical instruments". The writ was refused by a short order in which the argument was set out and it was said that the learned Judges did "not see (their) way to agree with the learned Counsel." Leave is sought to appeal against this order. It is urged that a taxing statute must be interpreted and applied in favour of the assessee, wherever the law so allows. The point of these goods falling within the description of "surgical instruments" was taken before the taxing authorities informally in a letter, during the taxing proceedings, but was rejected. Later, reliance was placed on the exemption under the description of "drugs" having effect retroactively, but this was disallowed. The description "surgical instruments" is applicable to any object which is used by a surgeon for the purposes of an operation, and there is no doubt that surgical bandages and absorbent cotton are appliances that play s real part in the Conduct of surgical operations. Therefore, the plea should have been allowed to be taken, and the case should have been remanded to the taxing authorities to consider whether immunity from tags was not claimable on this score. The contention is not without force. We grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security--Rs. 1,
000. A prayer is made for stay of recovery of the tax hitherto assessed. We direct that if half the' amount of tax hitherto assessed is paid in cash, the recovery of the other half will be stayed if security for its payment is given in the shape of a bank guarantee. Petition accepted.