2008 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Farrukh Mahmud, Member (Judicial) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 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 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Farrukh Mahmud, Member (Judicial).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Rashid for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.13 & 46
Claim for exemption from levy of sales tax
Appeal had been directed against order whereby Collector had upheld the Order-in-Original calling for recovery of sales tax leviable on cotton seed oil and on oil dirt along with additional tax and penalty
Contention of appellant was that total sales of cotton seed oil worked out by the Department were Rs.20,48,800, which were less than Rs.5 million
Appellant had submitted that its unit was exempt from levy of sales tax in terms of Entry No.42 of the 6th Schedule of Sales Tax Act, 1990 which entry clearly mentioned that supplies made in Pakistan by the manufacturer, whose annual turnover from taxable supplies made in any tax period during the last 12 months ending any tax period, did not exceed Rs.5 million; was exempt as per provisions contained in S.13(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990
Department had made out a case on the basis of electricity units consumed
Admittedly the value of supplies was less than Rs. 5 million
Appellant, in circumstances was entitled to exemption
Impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).
This appeal has been directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 28/06 whereby the learned Collector (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original No.06/05, dated 24-12-2005 and the recovery of sales tax of Rs.3,07,320 leviable on cotton seed oil and Rs.6,501 leviable on oil dirt along with additional tax and penalty of Rs.3,98,927 was ordered.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that appellant was registered, being manufacturer, vide certificate of registration, dated 9-10-1999. However, subsequently the appellant was de-registered. In this regard he has placed on file a computer print out showing de-registration. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that total sales of cotton seed oil worked out by the department were Rs.20,48,800 which are definitely less than Rs.5 million. It is submitted that the appellant unit is exempt from levy of sales tax in terms of entry No.42 of the 6th Schedule of Sales Tax Act, 1990, wherein it is clearly mentioned that supplies made in Pakistan by the manufacturer, whose annual turnover from taxable supplies made in any tax period, during the last 12 months ending any tax period does not exceed Rs.5 million, is exempt as per provisions contained in section 13(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
3. The respondent appeared at one stage and filed parawise comments. However, absented at the later stage. The respondent was issued notice `parvee' for today, but no body has turned up, hence the respondent has been proceeded ex parte.
4. I have perused the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent department had made out a case on the basis of electricity units consumed and as per their calculation value of the cotton seed oil supplied amounted to Rs.20,48,800 only. The appellant has claimed exemption under section 13(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with entry No.42 of the 6th Schedule. Admittedly, the value of supplies is less than Rs.5 million. The appellant is, therefore, found entitled to exemption. I do not find any justification to tax the appellant. In view of above discussion, the appeal stands accepted and orders passed by the lower forums are hereby set aside. H.B.T./149/Tax(Trib.) Appeal accepted.