C.I.R., ZONE-IV, L.T.U., KARACHI versus PAKISTAN STATE OIL LIMITED, KARACHI
Representative of the relevant department of the Appeal Tribunal's limitation of appeal on section 131 (5), Provo Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 46 (2), is of the view that the Tribunal has a period of one hundred same days. May approve the stay against the collection of tax demand. On the whole, however, in the present case one hundred and eighty days had expired and no further stay could be allowed. The taxpayers said the tribunal (accountant member) endorsed the authority's decision on three issues, while the original four issues were set aside by the order. The remand order; on the contrary, the Tribunal (Judicial Member) vacated the order on the first three issues and agreed with the Accountant Member on the fourth issue. Also, even if the order of the accountant member is taken, no demand can be made from the decree. That at least one case was ordered by way of remand and it was proposed to put aside all the matters in the Judicial Member's view. This correction request is not enforceable because there was no demand in the law about which the department was threatening. And this correction request should be rejected because of the taxpayer's error, the legitimate issue of the taxpayers was pending before the appellate tribunal but the final order could not be passed due to disagreement between the Judicial and Accountant Member. Still pending the appointment of a referee, the two members set aside the matter for fresh consideration on specific issues, meaning that there is no demand in the law and the Appellate Tribunal instructed the department. Do not take any drastic action
