2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)
C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs KAY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nazir Ahmad, Judicial Member and Mian Masood Ahmad, Accountant Member |
| Parties | C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs KAY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (Trib (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 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Nazir Ahmad, Judicial Member and Mian Masood Ahmad, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs KAY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2012.
Headnotes / Summary
S.21
Sales Tax Rules 2006, R.12(5)
De-registration, blacklisting and suspension of registration
Taxpayer was charged for receiving refund against invoices issued by suspended/black listed units
First Appellate Authority observed that "R.12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 required that the invoices issued by a person whose registration was suspended shall not be entertained for the purposes of refund or input tax claim; and once such person was blacklisted the refund or input tax credit whether prior or after such blacklisting shall be rejected through a self-speaking appealable order and after hearing the person; thus, a self speaking appealable order had to be passed through which refund or input tax credit claimed shall be rejected and such order will be appealable order; and in the present case this rule was not applicable because in this case the demand had been created after issuance of refund ; and where the refund was issued R.12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 will not come in to play as this was not meant for recovery of tax that had been refunded to the taxpayer"
Department was unable to find any fault with the findings of First Appellate Authority which did not appear to be suffering from any factual or legal infirmity
Order of the First Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Mrs. Humaira Maryam, D.R. for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
The Revenue has come up in appeal to agitate against the appellate Order No. 209 of 2010 dated 22-11-2010 whereby the learned CIR(A) had allowed the respondent-taxpayer's appeal against Order-in-Original No.28 of 2010 dated 16-7-2010.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per impugned order, are that the respondent taxpayer was charged for receiving refund amounting to Rs.1,161,962 against the invoices issued by suspended/black listed units. The learned CIR(A) observed that Rule 12(5) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 was not applicable in the case. The operative part of the learned CIR(A)'s order reads as under:-- "Perusal of the Rule shows that it requires that the invoices issued by a person whose registration is suspended shall not be entertained for the purposes of refund or input tax claim. This Rule further requires that once such person is blacklisted the refund or input tax credit whether prior or after such blacklisting shall be rejected through a self-speaking appealable order and after hearing the person. It is therefore, obvious that a self speaking appealable order has to be passed by concerned authority through which refund or input tax credit claimed shall be rejected and such order will be appealable order. It is obvious that in the present case this Rule is not applicable because in this case the demand in this case has been created after issuance of refund. In other words where the refund is issued this Rule will not come in to play as this is not meant for recovery of tax that has been refunded to the taxpayer. In view of the above the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant requested for interim order in this case in pursuance of Lahore High Court, Lahore's order also stands disposed of as the final order in favour of the taxpayer has been passed."
3. The learned representatives of the two parties have been heard who respectively support the orders favouring their clients. The learned DR is, however, unable to find any fault with the findings of the learned CIR(A) which do not appear to be suffering from any factual or legal infirmity. The impugned order merits confirmation. It is ordered accordingly. CMA/123/Tax(Trib.) Appeal rejected.