2002 PLP 508 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED
| Citation | 2002 PLP 508 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Naseem Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 508 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 508 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Naseem Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 508 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE Versus Messrs HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MANSOOR AHMAD, J.
Revenue is aggrieved from the judgment, dated 1-6-1998 passed in Appeal No.631 of 1997 by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore.
2. Messrs Hoechst Ravi Chemicals Limited, Faisalabad , Road, Sheikhupura submitted sales tax return for the month of October, 1996. A refund of Rs.10,67,592 was claimed by the respondent-assessee. The refund was declared by the Assistant Collector (Refund) Sheikhupura. Aggrieved from that order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) observing that section 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 pertains to sales tax figure of the tax period alone which was only one month and finding no substance in the claim of the assessee dismissed the appeal.
3. Assesseee filed a second appeal before the Customs, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore. The Tribunal vide its judgment impugned accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision of the entire claim of refund of the appellant as shown in the return without applying any limitation or
4. The Collector of Sales Tax, Lahore assailed the order of the Tribunal through the present appeal on various grounds inter alia contending that the provision of section 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not properly applied by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the adjustment of tax was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal inasmuch as that the provisions of section 7 vis-A-vis section .10 of the Act was misconstrued.
5. We find no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel. Firstly because the Tribunal has merely remanded the case for deciding afresh the appeal of the assessee. Secondly the Tribunal has noted in its order that the provisions of section 10 were substituted by the Finance Act, 1996 which was made applicable with effect from 1-7-1996. Substituted section 10 of the Act provided carrying forward the excess amount of input tax to the next six consecutive of input tax was not only confined to a tax period of a particular month but it could be carried A forward for the next six months. This being the clear legal position no substantial and important question of law emerges out in the present appeal. Resultantly we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./C-137/L Appeal dismissed.