2015 PLP (Trib (PTD)

MUHAMMAD ASIF (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).

The above titled appeal, at the instance of the registered person, has been directed against the Suspension Order dated 25-10-2012 recorded by CIR, Zone-X, RTO-II., Lahore.

2. Brief facts of this case as recorded in the impugned order are that the appellant is working with the government and semi government departments. The said departments deduct 1/5th sales tax amounts and depositing in the government treasury. The registered person could not receive the show-cause notice for suspension of registration. The registered person vide his letter dated 14-12-2012 requested for removal of suspension/undertaking for production of record for audit. In response to which, the registered person was directed to appear before the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR., Lahore because information report was given by the department of Intelligence for suspension due to non appearance of registered person. The registered person filed reply accordingly. The reply submitted by the appellant to the show-cause notice issued by the learned Commissioner was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, the registered person was blacklisted. Hence this appeal.

3. In response to call notice, Ch. Usman Khalil., Advocate appeared on behalf of taxpayer while Mrs. Samia Ejaz, DR appeared on behalf of department. Both of them were heard.

4. The learned AR invited our attention to section 21(2) that reads as under:-- "Section 21(2) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in cases where the (Commissioner) is satisfied that a registered person is found to have issued fake invoices or has [otherwise] committed tax fraud, he may blacklist such person or suspend his registration in-accordance with such procedure as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, prescribed]. (underlying for emphasis). The learned AR submitted as the procedure was not notified in the official gazette, the order of blacklisting was illegal. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in S.T.A. No.1193/LB of 2014 in which it is held that since Sales Tax General Order 35/2012 has not been notified in the official gazette, therefore, the order of blacklisting cannot be sustained.

5. We have considered arguments of both the parties and perused the record. Our attention was drawn to Rule 11 to contend that the procedure was notified in the official gazette. For the sake of convenience Rule 11 is reproduced as under:-- "

12. Blacklisting and suspension of registration.

Where the Commissioner or Board has reasons to believe that the registered person is to be suspended or blacklisted, the procedure as prescribed by the Board shall be followed". It is obvious that in pursuance of this Rule the sales tax general order (STGO) was issued by the Board and hence the requirement of section 21(2) was duly satisfied.

6. We are not inclined to accept this contention for the simple reason that the necessary condition of notification of the procedure in the official gazette as required under section 21(2) has not been satisfied. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence vacated.

7. Appeal succeeds. HBT/138/Tax(Trib.) Appeal accepted.