2005 PLP 1498 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE Versus Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED.
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1498 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE Versus Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED. |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1498 (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 2005 PLP 1498 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1498 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE Versus Messrs GLAMOUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Farani Sheikh for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 33(2)(cc), 46(4) & 47
Powers of Appellate Tribunal
Assessee was proceeded against for delayed payment of Sales Tax and was imposed a penalty by Adjudicating Officer which was maintained by Collector
Appellate Tribunal, vide its order, modified said orders partly allowing appeal
Collector of Customs had filed appeal before High Court against order of Appellate Tribunal
Appellate Tribunal, under S.46(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was empowered to pass any such order as it thought fit
View reducing/altering penalty taken by Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, would hardly call for interference by High Court particularly when no question of law, as contemplated by S.47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, had arisen in the matter
Appeal before High Court being bereft of any merit, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
The respondent in this appeal was proceeded against for delayed payment of sales tax and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,22,563 by the Adjudicating Officer which order was maintained by the Collector of Appeal. However, on appeal the learned Appellate Tribunal has vide order, dated 24-8-2004 modified the orders, partly allowing the appeal. This appeal thereagainst under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard in the matter. His contention is that the statutory authorities in the hierarchy had acted in accordance with law in imposing the penalty as contemplated by section 33(2)(cc) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 which order should not have been interfered by the Appellate Tribunal.
3. On consideration and perusal of the record the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that "the appellants have already paid Rs.1,16,759 out of which an amount of Rs.76,019 is to be adjusted against additional tax for the actual period of default and the remaining amount of Rs.40,750 is to be adjusted against penalty. The penalty in excess of Rs.40,750 is remitted since the penalty of Rs.2,22,563 imposed by the Adjudicating Officer is considered harsh". By taking the above-mentioned view the appeal was partially allowed and the impugned order was modified accordingly.
4. After heaving heard the learned counsel for the appellant we find that while deciding the appeal under section 46(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the learned Tribunal was empowered to pass any such order as it thought fit. Such a view reducing/altering the penalty taken by the learned Tribunal in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction would hardly call for interference by this Court particularly when no question of law as contemplated by section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 arises in the matter. The appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./C-56/L Appeal dismissed.