COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, ZONE-II, LAHORE versus NESTLE PAKISTAN LTD.
The nature of the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 47 (1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, where the taxpayer's jurisdiction referred to in Articles 47, 30 and 31 of the High Court authorized to file a sales tax, was a person who Secondly, the reference was signed, secondly, at the time of filing the present reference, the Commissioner was no longer Inland Revenue, and he was not the Commissioner working in the jurisdiction of the taxpayers, who was a Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. (1) gave the commissioner authority. Prefer the petition / reference before the High Court against the order of the appellate tribunal and it also gave the said Commissioner the option not to assign an officer of Inland Revenue below the rank of Additional Commissioner Reading of section 47 (1). ? A notification issued under Sections 30 and 31 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, means that the Commissioner under section 47 (1) was the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the taxpayers. Therefore, it was only the Commissioner mentioned above who could prefer the petition / reference against the Appellate Tribunal's order in the case of taxpayers before the High Court, and any other Commissioner would strictly adhere to such conduct in terms of the sections. Didn't have to 30 and 31 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and it cannot be said that any Commissioner in the country can exercise jurisdiction over the taxpayers case and file reference against the appellate tribunal's decision in favor of the taxpayers. Such an action would lead to the demolition of the tax administration structure constructed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, and under Section 47 (1) of the Act, the Commissioner was specifically considered to be a reference. Filed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
