1992 PLP 339 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Messrs RAZIKI INK CO. LTD.
| Citation | 1992 PLP 339 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Messrs RAZIKI INK CO. LTD. |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 339 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 339 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Imam Ali G. Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 339 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Messrs RAZIKI INK CO. LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muktada Karim for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th September, 1991.
- 2. We have heard Mr. Nasrullah Awan, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. Muktada Karim, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Raziki Ink. Company Limited 1991 PTD 783, which was between the same parties but related to an earlier assessment year. In the aforesaid reported decision it was held as follows:--
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7
Notification No.7, dated 27th June, 1951; item No.1
Word "ordinarily" used in the notification refers to all the articles mentioned in the said notification. 1991 PTD 783 fol. Nasrullah Awan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.
The following question has been referred to us for our opinion under section 17(1) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal at the request of the Commissioner of Sales Tax:-- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the word `Ordinarily' refers to all the articles mentioned in item No.l of Notification No.7, dated 27-6-1951?"
2. We have heard Mr. Nasrullah Awan, learned counsel for the Department and Mr. Muktada Karim, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Raziki Ink. Company Limited 1991 PTD 783, which was between the same parties but related to an earlier assessment year. In the aforesaid reported decision it was held as follows:-- "It may be pointed out at the very outset that the items referred to in the Notification are school slates, slate pencils, takhties, exercise books, writing ink, penholders, geometry colour and paint boxes, and scales. All these items enumerated in the Notification are such items which are ordinarily used by students. No doubt, the word `ordinarily' inserted in the said notification occurs after the word `instruments' but merely because the said word occurs after the word instruments does not mean that it is meant to qualify the word `instruments' alone. This amendment in the said notification clearly appears to have been made for the benefit of the assessee, and therefore, according to us, if two interpretations are possible then any interpretation which favours the assessee has to be preferred. Since the words `ordinarily used by students' occur at the end of said notification, in our view, they apply to all the items enumerated in the list and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Assistant Appellate Commissioner, Income-Tax that the exemption applies only to instruments appears to be erroneous. Consequently, in our opinion, the word `ordinarily' refers to all the articles mentioned in the said Notification and this reference is answered accordingly."
3. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the word "ordinarily" used in the aforesaid Notification refers to all the articles mentioned in the said Notification. The reference stands answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. M.B.H./C-248/K Answer accordingly.