2009 PLP 2004 (PTD)
Messrs MERAJ DIN through Partner Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2004 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed and S. Ali Hussain Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs MERAJ DIN through Partner Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2004 (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 2009 PLP 2004 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and S. Ali Hussain Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2004 (PTD) (Messrs MERAJ DIN through Partner Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rao Tahir Shakeel for Petitioner.
- Qaiser Javed Awan for Respondent No.2.
- 5. The afore-said question came up before this 'Court and was adjudicated upon in the case reported as Messrs Tanvir Weaving Mills through Director Finance v. Deputy Collector Sales Tax and 4 others 2009 PTD 762, wherein it was held that the order under section 36(3) must be passed within the period prescribed in proviso to the said provision. The learned counsel for the department has not been able to persuade us to hold otherwise. Consequently, the question raised is answered in the negative in favour of the taxpayer. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.36(3) & 472
Determination of amount of tax on charge
Only question requiring expression of opinion by the High Court was; "whether Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal concerned was justified in holding that Adjudicating Authority could pass order under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 beyond the time limit prescribed under the said section"
Counsel for the appellant contended that in the present case order under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was passed beyond the prescribed period
Held, order under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 must be passed within the period prescribed in proviso to S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
Question raised was answered in negative in favour of the taxpayer. Messrs Tanvir Weaving Mills through Director Finance v. Deputy Collector Sales Tax and 4 others 2009 PTD 762 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This reference under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 arises from the order of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22-8-2006.
2. Though several questions of law have been raised in this reference, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that only one question requires the expression of opinion by this Court i.e. question No.3 which is re-produced as under:-- "Whether Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore is justified in holding that adjudication authority can pass order under section 36(3) of the Sales and Tax Act, 1990 beyond the time limit prescribed under the said section?"
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the order under section 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was passed beyond the prescribed period as mentioned in the said provision of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon the proviso thereto which reads as follows:-- "Provided that order under this section shall be made within (ninety) days of issuance of show-cause notice or within such extended period as (the Collector) may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, fix, provided that such extended period shall in no case exceed ninety days."
4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
5. The afore-said question came up before this 'Court and was adjudicated upon in the case reported as Messrs Tanvir Weaving Mills through Director Finance v. Deputy Collector Sales Tax and 4 others 2009 PTD 762, wherein it was held that the order under section 36(3) must be passed within the period prescribed in proviso to the said provision. The learned counsel for the department has not been able to persuade us to hold otherwise. Consequently, the question raised is answered in the negative in favour of the taxpayer. Reference is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./M-696/L Order accordingly.