2003 PLP 1376 (PTD)
COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE through Collector Sales Tax Versus CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1376 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE through Collector Sales Tax Versus CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and another |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1376 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1376 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim 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: 2003 PLP 1376 (PTD) (COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE through Collector Sales Tax Versus CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad and A. Karim Malik for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
The appellant is a registered person. In a report by the Audit Wing of the Revenue it was pointed out that - an amount of Rs.68,137 due as further tax for the period of July, 1998 was deposited by the appellant on 7-9-1998 instead of 15-8-1998. Therefore it was found liable to pay additional tax for the month of July. After issuance of a show-cause notice adjudication proceedings were undertaking which resulted in an order in original whereby the appellant was required to pay additional tax for late payment of further tax amounting to Rs.68,137 as noted above.
2. On appeal a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench found in favour of the appellant and set aside the order on the ground that there was no justification for levy of additional tax. In the view of the learned Members further tax was levied w.e.f. 1-7-1998 'vide Finance Act, 1998 and as soon as the appellant came to know of it the amount of further tax was deposited on 7-9-1998 which involved a nominal delay. Hence this further appeal by the department.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue at the outset states that the aforesaid further tax of one percent imposed by Finance Act, 1998 having already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 19-5-2002 in C. P. No. 1956-L of 1999 and 149-L of 2000 no question of additional tax could possibly arise at all.
4. We will agree. By way of the aforesaid judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan maintained the judgment of the Peshawar High Court whereby the levy of one percent further tax as levied by the insertion of subsection (1-A) to section 3 of the Sales Tax Act was struck down. Subsequently a number of petitions were filed by the manufactures of sugar before the apex Court against dismissal of their Constitutional petitions by a learned Single Judge of this Court recorded on 15-11-199. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court with reference to their earlier judgment recorded in C.P. No.474-P of 1999 directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court again accepted the petitions to the extent of further tax at the rate of 1% levied by Finance Act, 1998. In para. 5 of the judgment their Lordships recorded the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue had not contested that issue. It was rather noted that further tax at the rate of one per cent levied by the Finance Act, 1998 and ceased to have effect in view of their earlier judgment, dated 19-5-2002.
5. That being so we will allow the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue and hold that original levy having been struck down no question of payment of further tax could arise at all. Therefore, this appeal by the Revenue shall be dismissed. C.M.A./C-203/L Appeal dismissed.