Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

versus


Sections 10 (4), 11 (2), 7, 8, 26 and 33 Section RO 555 (I) / 2006 Dated 5 6 2006, R 28 (1) Additional refund should be made by the Border Department observed that the appellants. Did not file a refund Along with supporting documents within 60 days of the filing of a refund, the claim for refund along with the claim is also prohibited while the registered person is exempted from sections 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 The violation was alleged. In the claim of withdrawal, the original in appellate claimed that in only one case was the filing of documents delayed by 38 days, in which case the citizen's money was not withheld at the request of a limitation by a public worker or by another technical request. Was. It was legally payable by the department which accepted the position and the appellant's argument was also accepted that in similar cases the department and the first appellate authority on the appeal. Refunds were allowed in the case before. Was late accepted and placed aside by the appellate tribunal \ r \ n

2010 P T D (Trib.) 449

[Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal]

Before Khalid Naseem, Member (Technical)

Sales Tax Appeal No. 139/LB of 2008, decided on 16th September, 2009.

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----Ss. 10(4), 11(2), 7, 8, 26 & 33---S.R.O. 555(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006, R.28 (1)---Excess amount to be refunded---Limitation---Department observed that appellants did not file refund claim along with supporting documents within sixty days of filing of refund---Refund claimed being time barred was liable for rejection---Registered person was charged with violation of Ss. 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Adjudication proceedings culminated in passing of Order-in-Original for rejection of refund claimed-"--Validity---Appellate contended that the only issue involved was filing of supporting documents late by 38 days---Withholding of citizen"s money by a public functionary on the plea of limitation or on any other technical plea if it was not legally payable by him was deprecated---Department accepted the position and also the arguments of the appellant that in similar cases the refund had been allowed in many cases by the department and by the First Appellate Authority---Plea of the appellate was accepted and the orders were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. PLD 1998 SC 64 rel. Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Abdul Nasir, Auditor for Respondent. Date of hearing. 26th August, 2009.

JUDGMENT

KHALID NASEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).---

This judgment disposes of appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal 449/2007, dated 27-11-2007 passed by the Collector Customs, Sales Tax & Federal Excise (Appeals), Faisalabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during scrutiny of refund claim for the tax period 07/06 filed by Messrs Habib Haseeb Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad it was observed that the appellants did not file refund claim along with supporting documents within sixty days of the filing of refund under Rules 28(1) of S.R.O. 555(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006. Thus, the refund claim filed by the appellants was time barred which was liable for rejection in terms of sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Rule 28(1) of the aforesaid Sales Tax Act, 2006. Based on the aforesaid irregularity/omission, Messrs Habib Haseeb Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad were charged with violation of sections 7, 8, 10 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with Sales Tax Rules, 2006 and were called upon to show cause as to why input tax refund claimed may not be rejected under sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and why penal action may not be taken against them under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Adjudication proceedings culminated in passing of an Order-in-Original No.297-476/2007 dated 25-8-2007 for rejection of refund claim under sections 10(4) and 11(2) of the Act ibid. Being aggrieved of the said order the registered person filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Faisalabad who vide Order-in-Appeal No.449/2007 dated 27-11-2007 upheld the Order-in-Original. Feeling dis-satisfied and aggrieved of the said order, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal praying to set aside the orders of the lower forums. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that only issue involved is filing of supporting documents late by 38 days for the tax period July, 2006 and cited the judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 64 wherein it has been decided to discourage withholding of citizen"s money by a public functionary on the plea of limitation or on any other technical plea if it was not legally payable by him. He also referred to the judgments of this Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed refund by accepting the appeal based on the above judgment. The departmental representative accepted the position and also the arguments of the learned, counsel that in similar cases the refund has been allowed in many cases by the department and by the Collector (Appeals), therefore the plea of the appellant is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. 4. The appeal stands disposed of as above. C.M.A./182/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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous lower court advocate from Mandi Faizabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.