Find a Lawyer

S.T.A. No. 190/LB of 2007, decided on 20th August, 2007.

----Ss.14 & 46---Appeal---Registration of retailer---:Under provisions of S.14 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 a retailer whose value of supply in any period during the last 12 months exceeded rupees five million, was liable to be registered---Department in case of appellant had taken income year 2003 as basis for registration of appellant unit, whereas law had provided that preceding 12 months period was to be taken into consideration---Sales for the preceding 12 months i.e. during the year 2005 in appellant"s case were below rupees five million---Appellant, in circumstances was not liable to be compulsorily registered as it could be registered only in view of the sales made by it during preceding 12 months---Impugned orders were set aside, in circumstances.Nizam ud Din A.R. for Appellant. Ghulam Shabir Auditor for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th August, 2007.

This appeal has been directed against Order-in-Appeal No.66 of 2007, whereby the learned Collector (Appeals) had upheld Order-in-Original No.10 of 2006, passed by the learned Assistant Collector (Adjudication), Faisalabad. 2. The issue relates to compulsory registration of the appellant. The learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the appellant, has drawn attention of the Tribunal to the provisions contained in section 14 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding requirement of registration, according to which a retailer, whose value of supply in any period during the last 12 months exceeds rupees five million, is liable to be registered. It is submitted by the appellant that the respondent-Department had taken income year, 2003 as basis for registration of the appellant unit, whereas law provides that preceding 12 months" period is to be taken into consideration. There is no denying of the fact that sales for the preceding 12 months i.e. during the year, 2005 were below rupees five million and as such it is submitted that the appellant was not compulsorily liable to be registered. 3. On the other hand, the respondent submits that since the supplies made for year, 2003 exceeded the limit of rupees five million, hence the Department was competent to register the appellant. 4. After hearing both the parties, I am of the considered view that the appellant unit could be registered only in, view of the sales made by him during preceding 12 months. In the present case, admittedly, during preceding 12 months sales were less than the prescribed limit of rupees five million. The Department was not competent to go beyond the prescribed limit of 12 preceding months. It is not justifiable to base registration on the data of sales beyond the period of 12 preceding months. In these circumstances, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law, the same are, therefore, set aside and the appeal stands accepted. H.B.T./143/Tax(Trib.) Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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