2014 PLP 1253 (CLD)
Messrs NIAGARA MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division), Federation Board of Revenue, and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 1253 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs NIAGARA MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division), Federation Board of Revenue, and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1253 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1253 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1253 (CLD) (Messrs NIAGARA MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division), Federation Board of Revenue, and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khubaib Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Safdar Mehmood for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 46
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
Petitioner/taxpayer contended that his appeal with regard to disputed amount of sales tax was pending before Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue; and during the pendency of said appeal he was issued notice for recovery of amount
Contention of petitioner/taxpayer was that unless appeal was decided by at least one independent forum outside the departmental hierarchy, recovery should not be made by Department
High Court directed Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, to decide the appeal or stay application of the petitioner/taxpayer within a period of thirty days, till decision of appeal or stay application, whichever was earlier and no coercive measures should be adopted against the petitioner/taxpayer for the disputed amount
Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that his appeal and stay application is pending before respondent No.2, which has not been decided as yet, however, during the pendency of the appeal respondent No.4 had issued a notice for the recovery of the disputed amount. Submits that it is settled law that unless the appeal is decided by at least one independent forum outside the departmental hierarchy, the recovery should not be made by the department. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Messrs Pak Saudi Fertilizers Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 PTD 679) and Messrs Z.N. Exports (Private) Limited v. Collector of Sales Tax (2003 PTD 1746), Additional Collector-II Sales Tax, Lahore v. Messrs Abdullah Sugar Mills Limited and others (2003 PTD 1664).
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to direct respondent No.2 to decide the appeal or the stay application of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today however, till the decision of the appeal or stay application which ever is earlier no coercive measures shall be adopted against the petitioner for the recovery of the disputed amount.
3. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. KMZ/N-16/L Order accordingly.