2002 PLP 1860 (PTD)
Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE CANTT Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1860 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE CANTT Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1860 (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 2002 PLP 1860 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem 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: 2002 PLP 1860 (PTD) (Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE CANTT Versus COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imran Anjum Alvi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S.47
Notification No.S.R.O. 578(I), dated 12-6-1998
Order passed by Appellate Tribunal
Failure to give reason for the order passed by the Tribunal
Dispute was with regard to the adjustment of input tax under Notification No. S.R.O. 578(I), dated, 12-6-1998, against the generator parts- -'-Tribunal without stating reasons disagreed with the Assessing Officer that the generating parts could not be held to be covered by generators and generating sets as mentioned at Serial No.6 of the Notification
Where the Tribunal had not stated reasons for its disagreement its order was set aside by High Court and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh-- Appeal was allowed in circumstances. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue.
Judgment & Decree
NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the learned Tribunal did not advert to the core issue involved in appeal. It was that if the input tax adjustment against the generator parts was hit by the mischief of S.R.O. 578(1), dated 12-6-1998. In that S.R.O. at Serial No.(6) a mention was made of generators and generating sets. The Tribunal was why they disagreed that accordingly required to state the reasons as to the generating parts could not be held covered by generators and generating sets.
2. That having not been done, the order of Tribunal is set aside ana the matter is remanded to them for recording a fresh order after hearing the parties in the light of above findings.