2016 PLP (Trib (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs BECTON DICKINSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.
| Citation | 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Anwaar ul Haq, Judicial Member |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs BECTON DICKINSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP (Trib (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 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Anwaar ul Haq, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP (Trib (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, L.T.U., LAHORE Versus Messrs BECTON DICKINSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waqas Rashid, D.R. for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th April, 2016.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7, 10, 46 & 74
Adjustment of sales tax liability against income tax refund
Department had filed application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal
Submission of department was that appeal could not be filed within prescribed period as employees of the department went on strike
Said application for condonation of delay, was not supported by an affidavit of concerned Commissioner
Contents of the application, without supporting document, could not be entertained
Even if the employees of the department went on strike, appeal was not filed on next date of calling off the strike, but was filed on second day thereof, which was barred by time
Application for condonation of delay, was incompetent, in circumstances
Even on merits, impugned appellate order did not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference by the Appellate Tribunal
Registered person had filed request for adjustment of sales tax liability against income tax refund well within time of filing sales tax return and the delay for adjustment was caused by the department
Order of adjustment of sales tax by Appellate Authority below, was maintained, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
The titled Sales Tax appeal, has been preferred at the instance of Revenue calling in question impugned order No.13 dated 20.01.2012.
2. The above appeal is supported by an application filed by the Revenue under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, seeking condonation of delay in filing of present second appeal. In the said application, it is stated that the first appeal order was delivered to the office of Commissioner on 16.02.2012 and limitation for filing second appeal was expired on 14.04.2012. It is further submitted that Employees of the Revenue went on strike which lasted till 18.04.2012, therefore, second appeal before this Tribunal could not be filed before expiry of limitation i.e. 14.04.2012. Accordingly, it is prayed that the period of delay may kindly be condoned enabling the department to get the appeal decided on merits.
3. Under Rule 13 of the ATIR Rules, 2010, where a fact which cannot be borne out by or is contrary to the record, is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and concisely by a duly sworn affidavit and shall have to be filed with the memorandum of appeal. Contrary to this Rule, the said application for condonation of delay is not supported by an Affidavit of the concerned Commissioner. Therefore, the contents of the application without supported document cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, the alleged strike of the employees started 2nd April and lasted till 18.04.2012 and if the said period is to be excluded while calculating time of limitation even then the last date for filing of appeal becomes 1st of May, 2012 whereas the present appeal was filed on 2nd of May, 2012 which is badly barred by time. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is incompetent on both scores.
4. Even on merits of the case, I am of the view that the impugned appellate order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference by me. The registered person filed request for adjustment of sales tax liability against income tax refund well within time of filing sales tax Return and the delay for adjustment was caused by the department. Therefore, I am inclined to maintain the order of the learned CIR(A) and also endorse his observations made in the concluding paragraph of his order. HBT/45/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.