Find a Lawyer

S.T.A. No.1186/LB of 2002, decided on 15th December, 2007.

----Ss.36 & 10---S.R.O. 839(I)/98, dated 23-7-1998---S.R.O. 544 dated i2-6-1998--Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded---Refund Department detected that claim of refund of input tax paid to local vendors on purchase of components for agricultural tractors was erroneously sanctioned as the exemption of input tax was prospective in nature and issued notice for recovery of such refunded sales tax---Registered person contended that with the understanding with Central Board of Revenue the prices of the agricultural tractors were reduced due to availability of stock, therefore, such notification should be given retrospective effect---Validity---Dispute between parties was the grant of exemption between the dates of 12-6-1998 and 22-7-1998 as the exemption was re-allowed with effect from 23-7-1998---Benefit of S.R.O. No.839(I)/98 dated 23-7-1998 could not be extended retrospectively unless the S.R.O. itself provided so---Said S.R.O. clearly showed that it had to take effect from its date and thus ruled out its retrospectivity---Assessees failed to place on record any understanding with the Central Board of Revenue for granting exemption between 12-6-1998 to 22-7-1998---Such understanding could not be inferred from other circumstances---Order passed by the Adjudicating Officer was in accordance with law which was maintained by the Appellate Tribunal.

----Ss.45-A & 36---Power of the Federal Board of Revenue and Collector to call for records---Jurisdiction---Contention was that after granting refund only the Collector was competent to reopen the matter---Validity---Held, it was not a reopening of the matter rather the proceedings were initiated on the report of DRRA which audited the record---No bar existed in the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for conducting the post audit---Such contention was never raised before the lower forum therefore, could not be allowed to be agitated for the first time in the appeal---By not raising the point of jurisdiction the appellant had waived his right to assert the same subsequently. Umer Arshad for Appellant. Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Rashid Mehmood, Auditor for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2007.

This Sales Tax Appeal is directed against an order-in-original dated 7-3-2002 passed by Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Lahore whereby" liability to the tune of Rs.18477840 has been adjudged against the appellant. 2. Fact of the case briefly stated are that during the audit of the registered person it was detected that the claim of refund of input tax amounting to Rs.1847840 paid to local vendors on purchase of components for agricultural tractors was erroneously sanctioned as according to S.R.O. No.839(I) 98 dated 23-7-98 the exemption of input tax was prospective in nature. The unit was called upon to explain as to why the refunded sales tax should not be recovered. The notice was contested by the registered person on the ground that with the understanding with C.B.R. the prices of the agricultural tractors were reduced according to S.R.O. 544 dated 12-6-98 due to availability of stock therefore, the notification date 23-7-98 should be given retrospective effect. The contention so raised by the registered person could not win the favour of the adjudicating officer who ordered the recovery of erroneously refunded input tax vide an impugned order Hence this appeal. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and examined the record. The first submission made by the counsel for the appellant was with regard to the reopening of the matter under section 454-A of the Sales Tax, 1990 as according to him after granting the refund only the Collector is competent to reopen the matter. The submission made has no substance for the reason that it was not a reopening of the matter rather the proceeding were initiated on the report of the DRRA which audited the record of the registered person. There is no bar in the Sales Tax Act for conducting the post audit. Similarly the plea of jurisdiction raised in this appeal was never raised by the appellant before the lower forum, therefore, cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time in the appeal. By not raising the point of jurisdiction the appellant had waived his right to assert the same subsequently. The precise dispute between parties is the grant of exemption between the dates of 12-6-98 to 22-7-98 as the exemption was re-allowed with effect from 23-7-98. In this regard it would be suffice to say that the benefit of the S.R.O., dated 23-7-19988 cannot be extended retrospectively unless the S.R.O. itself provides so. The perusal of the S.R.O. dated 23-7-98 clearly shows that it has to take effect with effect from 23-7-98 thus ruled out its retrospectivity. The appellants have also failed to place on record any understanding with the C.B.R. for granting exemption between 12-6-98 to 22-7-98. This understanding cannot be inferred from the other circumstances as alleged by the appellant during the course of the arguments. The order passed by the learned adjudicating officer is in accordance with law, therefore, is maintained. 4. For the fore-going reasons, the appeal is dismissed parties be informed through registered post or by UMS. 5. File be consigned after completion. C.M.A./144/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.