2003 PLP 1772 (PTD)

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.

In this further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. An order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax. Appellate Tribunal Lahore, dated 12-11-2002 is assailed. Following questions of law are claimed to have arisen out of the impugned order:-- (i) Whether learned Tribunal or the Adjudicating Officer has correctly interpreted the sections 33 and 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (the "Act")? (ii) Whether additional tax is to be calculated on the basis of compound interest or simple interest basis? (iii) When an amendment is made in a fiscal statute (the Act) for the benefit of the registered person. Whether the amendment will have retrospective or prospective effect? (iv) Whether impugned judgment passed by Hon'ble Tribunal amounts to discrimination? (v) Whether the impugned judgment is contrary to case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shah Nawaz Limited and others, decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.

2. According to the facts of the case the appellant is a registered manufacturer-exporter with the Sales Tax Department at Faisalabad. Proceedings were initiated against him after he was found to have received an amount of Rs. 4,68.,864 as sales tax refund on zero rated exports between April 1989 to June, 1999. According to the Sales Tax Authorities six out of 16 bills-of export were found fake by the concerned Customs Authorities of Karachi Port.

3. Before the Tribunal the appellant did not challenge to have received the aforesaid amount against fake bills of export. The only issue agitated before the Tribunal being his claim to pay additional tax at concessionary rate in terms of S.R.O. dated 6-6-2000 and some relief in the amount of penalty imposed at Rs.1,40,6160.

4. Learned Members of the Tribunal on consideration of the facts placed before them expressed the view that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid S.R.O. which was necessarily time linked. It was noted that concession of lower additional tax rate was available only to those persons who had made the payments of tax and other dues by 30-6-2000. The appellant, it was noted, made part payment before the cut off date. On the balance unpaid amount he was found liable to pay Rs.3,42,042 as additional tax. Also in view of the fact that submission of fake bills of export was admitted the amount of penalty at Rs.1,40,660 was found reasonable and accordingly maintained.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the impugned order does not give rise to any of the aforesaid questions of law. The submissions of fake bill of export having been admitted and the fact that the concession available under the aforesaid S.R.O. was limited with reference to a particular date, no interference with the impugned order of the Tribunal can be made. The issue if in the given situation, the appellant was entitled to the concession of the said S.R.O. even otherwise does not give rise to any question of law.

6. Appeal dismissed in limine. S.A.K./A-708/L Appeal dismissed.