Find a Lawyer

S.T.A. No. 273/LB of 2007, decided on 20th August, 2007.

---Ss.7, 11 & 46---Appeal---Appellate Tribunal---Assessment of Sales Tax---Record of appellant was audited for the year 2005-2006 and Auditor Sales Tax had observed firstly that appellant had suppressed the supplies of cotton seed oil by showing production of oil with 7% recovery ratio, whereas recovery ratio should have been 8%, secondly the discrepancy was with respect to supply of cotton seed oil to unregistered persons and in regard to said two objections, show-cause notice was issued to appellant and when matter came up for adjudication before Adjudicating Officer, it was found that charges against appellant had been established due to non-appearance of appellant---Appeal filed against order of Adjudicating Officer having been dismissed---Validity---Recovery ratio as per minutes of the meeting with Association was 8% for the oil mills for the year 2004-2005---Appellant could not produce any evidence as to how ratio had decreased to 7%-Department had rightly found the recovery ratio of 8%-Appeal on that account failed---Regarding second objection, appellant had failed to produce sales tax invoices showing supplies to have been made to registered persons---In the absence of such sales tax invoices, no relief could be granted to appellant. Mian M. Arif Amin for Appellant. Safdar Bashir for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th August, 2007.

The record of the appellant unit was audited for the period 2005-2006 and the Auditor Sales Tax, Rahim Yar Khan, observed that the registered person has suppressed the supplies of cotton seed oil by showing production of oil with 7% recovery ratio, whereas recovery ratio should have been 8%. The other observation was with respect to supply of cotton seed oil to unregistered persons. In view of the above two observations, show-cause notice was issued. on 17-1-2007 and the matter when came up for adjudication before the learned Adjudicating Officer, it was held "the charges have been established due to non-appearance of the appellant" and consequently Order-in-Original No.14 of 2007 was passed, which was assailed before the learned Collector (Appeals) from where the appellant could not get any relief, hence instant appeal. 2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has placed on file minutes of the meeting held on 18-12-2004, wherein a decision was taken with respect to recovery ratio of cotton seed oil and it was decided that minimum recovery ratio for the oil mills shall be 8% and 7% for composite units for the season for the year, 2004-2005. On the basis of above said decision, the learned counsel has stressed that the appellant had already paid due sales tax on 7% recovery ratio. 3. As regards second issue, it was alleged that the appellant has made supplies to the registered persons only, hence the learned counsel stressed that the impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the representative of the Department has stressed that the recovery ratio of 7%, as decided in the minutes of the meeting, dated 18-12-2004, related for the year, 2004-2005 and the same is not applicable for the coming years. He further submitted that as per Textile Industries Notes, recovery ratio ranges from 10 to 12%. He has further pointed out that even in the minutes of the meeting, dated 18-12-2004, the recovery ratio is 8% for oil mills and 7% for composite units. It was further submitted that the appellant is an oil mills, which was liable to show recovery ratio of 8% even during the year, 2004-2005 and if it had decreased it was the appellant to establish that how the recovery ratio has decreased. In these circumstances, it was stressed that 8% recovery ratio was in fact minimum which should be upheld. 5. As regards other objection, the representative of the Department submitted that the appellant has not provided any sales tax invoice showing supplies to the registered persons. In absence of the relevant record no favour can be given to the appellant. 6. Both the parties have been heard. Record perused. Admittedly the recovery ratio as per minutes of the meeting, dated 18-12-2004, was 8% for the oil mills for the year, 2004-2005. The appellant has not produced any evidence as to how the recovery ratio has decreased, whereas the Textile Industries Notes indicate recovery ratio from 10% to 12%. In view of these circumstances, the Department, having held the recovery ratio of 8% for oil mills, is justified. Consequently, the appeal on this account fails. 7. As regards the other issue, the appellant has not produced sales tax invoices showing supplies to have been made to registered persons. In the absence of such sales tax invoices no relief can be granted to the appellant. 8. The upheld of the above discussion is that the appeal fails. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 9. This order shall also dispose of the following three appeals, having identical issues:--

H.B.T.147/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.