2003 PLP 1774 (PTD)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE Versus AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1774 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE Versus AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1774 (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 2003 PLP 1774 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1774 (PTD) (DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE Versus AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 47
Appeal to High Court on question of fact decided and. settled. by Tribunal
Factual controversy could neither be adjudged nor embarked upon. by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
No question of law arising out of impugned judgment was ,involved
High Court dismissed appeal being incompetent and devoid of merits. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
S. 47
Appeal to High Court on question of fact decided and. settled. by Tribunal
Factual controversy could neither be adjudged nor embarked upon. by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
No question of law arising out of impugned judgment was ,involved
High Court dismissed appeal being incompetent and devoid of merits. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate. Instant: appeal filed under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the Deputy Collector of Sales The (Refund), is directed against the judgment, dated 26-7-1999, whereby the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while disposing of the respondents appeal, directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.2,882 to the appellant, with the prayer that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside restoring the order of the Collector (Appeals).
2. After hearing the learned counsel and upon the examination or the record, we find that the learned Tribunal, after examining the documents produced . by the parties including. sales tax return cum payment challan, has decided and settled the question of fact, after finding that the "date mentioned is 19th March, 1998 and not 2nd April, 1998, as wrongly held by the department", which factual controversy can neither be adjudged nor embarked upon by this Court, in exercise or the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court. under the aforenoted provisions of law. In view whereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Tribunal, which is hereby maintained.
3. Additionally, we are of the view that no questions of law arising out of the impugned judgment, which is sine-qua-non for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court, are involved in this case, hence, the present appeal is incompetent and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground.
4. In the above perspective, we find that the appeal is incompetent and devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed in limine on both the counts. S.A.K./D-54/L Appeal dismissed.