APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE OF PAKISTAN
KARACHI
BENCH KARACHI
Present: MR.
M.M.AKRAM, J.M.
DR. TAUQEER IRTIZA, A.M.
STA NO.362/KB/2018
(Tax
Periods July 2015 to June 2016)
*******
M/s Quetta Electric Supply
Company Limited,
(QESCO), Head Office,
Zarghoon Road, Quetta. ………………………………….Applicant
V e
r s u s
Zone-I, LTU, Karachi, .…………………………………………………..Respondent
Applicant by : Mr. Muhammad Munib & Mr. Kamran Rizvi, Adv.
Respondent
by : Sardar Abdul Rab, DR
Date of hearing : 09-06-2021
Date
of order : 09-06-2021
O R D E R
M. M. AKRAM (Judicial
Member): This
appeal has been filed by the appellant registered person under section 46 of
the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (“the Act”)
against the impugned Order No.ST/78/2017-18 dated 11.06.2018 passed by the
learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Quetta on the grounds as set
forth in the memo of appeal.
2. The facts, in brief, are that department
had conducted a desk audit of the soft data of sales tax for the tax periods
from July 2015 to June 2016 and have found that M/s Quetta Electric Supply
Company Limited (QESCO), Zarghoon Road, Quetta had late deposited the amount of
sales tax into Government treasury for the aforesaid tax periods. According to
section 34 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (“the
Act”), “if a registered person does
not pay the tax due or any part thereof, he shall, in addition to the tax due,
pay default surcharge at the rate KIBOR plus three percent per annum, of the
amount of tax due”. Further, under section 33 of the Act, “Any person who fails to deposit the amount
of tax due or any part shall pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or five
percent of the amount of tax involved is higher, provided that, if the amount
of tax or any part thereof is paid within fifteen days from the due date, the
defaulter shall pay a penalty of five hundred rupees for each day of default.”
As per the order of the Assessing Officer, the late deposit of sales tax
attracted levy of default surcharge and penalty as calculated below: -
|
AMOUNT
OF TAX LATE DEPOSITED |
ACTUAL
DATE OF PAYMENT AS PER CPR # OF RETURN |
DUE
DAE |
NO.
OF DAYS OF DEFAULT |
DEFAULT
SURCHARGE PAYABLE (KIBOR + 3%) |
PENALTY
AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO OF SECTION 33(5) OF THE SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (AMOUNT
PAID WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DUE DATE) |
PENALTY
U/S 33(5) OF THE SALES TAX ACT,1990 RS.10,000/- OR 5% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX
INVOLVED WHICHEVER IS HIGHER |
|
12,126,311 |
23.09.2015 |
21.08.2015 |
33-days
|
108,758 |
- |
606,316 |
|
12,042,239 |
30.09.2015 |
21.09.2015 |
09-days |
28,772 |
4,500 |
- |
|
15,080,626 |
04.11.2015 |
21.10.2015 |
14-days |
55,414 |
- |
754,031 |
|
14,212,300 |
08.12.2015 |
21.11.2015 |
17-days |
62,950 |
- |
710,615 |
|
10,176,223 |
14.01.2016 |
21.12.2015 |
24-days |
63,633 |
- |
508,811 |
|
15,018,430 |
02.02.2016 |
21.01.2016 |
12-days |
47,005 |
- |
750,922 |
|
14,770,320 |
29.02.2016 |
21.02.2016 |
08-days |
30,657 |
4,000 |
- |
|
12,772,651 |
31.03.2016 |
21.03.2016 |
10-days |
33,243 |
5,000 |
- |
|
9,594,679 |
12.05.2016 |
21.04.2016 |
21-days |
52,442 |
- |
479,734 |
|
11,638,468 |
31.05.2016 |
21.05.2016 |
10-days |
30,291 |
5,000 |
- |
|
13,584,527 |
30.06.2016 |
21.06.2016 |
09-days |
30,950 |
4,500 |
- |
|
17,426,361 |
02.08.2016 |
21.07.2016 |
12-days |
52,937 |
- |
871,318 |
|
158,443,135 |
|
|
|
|
23,000 |
4,681,746 |
|
|
|
|
597,052 |
4,704,746 |
||
On the basis of the above-stated facts
and scrutiny of sales tax records as per FBR’s web-portal, the registered
person was served with the show cause notice under section 11(1) of the Act as to why the amount of default
surcharge of Rs.597,052/- under section 34 of the Act and as to why a penalty
of Rs.4,704,746/- (Rs.10,000/- or 5% of the amount involved whichever is
higher) under section 33(5) of the Act should not be imposed on the registered
person for violation and contravention of the provisions of section 6 and 26(1)
of the Act read with sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 of Chapter III of Special
Procedure for collection and payment of sales tax on electric power. In
response to the show-cause notice, the registered person submitted its reply
which was considered and found unsatisfactory by the Assessing Officer.
Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 17.11.2017 under
section 11(1) of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved, the registered person filed
the first appeal before the learned CIR(A) which was disposed of vide impugned
appellate Order No.ST/78/2017-18 dated 11.06.2018 whereby the learned CIR(A)
upheld the treatment accorded by the Assessing Officer. Being dissatisfied with
the order of the learned CIR(A), the registered person has come up in the second
appeal before this Tribunal and assailed the order of the learned CIR(A) on a
number of grounds.
4. This
case came up for hearing on 09.06.2021. The learned AR for the appellant
contended that the appellant has been charging and collecting seven categories/types
of sales tax from their four types of consumers which are more than six hundred
and twenty thousand spread all over the Province. In addition to that, the
appellant is also burdened for collection and payment of withholding taxes,
fees, and surcharges from consumers which the appellant has to collect, compile
the data, and then deposit the amount of taxes/surcharges to the relevant
account/department on monthly basis. Further contended that Balochistan
Province having the most backward and remote areas of Pakistan and for the last
many years due to bad law and order situation, it is very difficult for any
organization to collect and deposit the taxes well on time. It has been stated
that the appellant being a public limited company, fully owned by the Government
of Pakistan cannot act mala fidi and intentionally file the sales tax returns
late in the order, to gain any financial benefit from late depositing of tax.
He asserted that despite the genuine reasons for deposit of sales tax and delay
in filing the returns, during the tax periods under consideration the due
amount of sales tax was paid voluntarily and without any notice of non-filing
of sales tax returns. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, he contended that the
imposition of penalty is a matter of discretion which must be exercised by the
authorities judiciously on consideration of the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case. In support of his contention, he placed on record
the judgments reported as 2004 PTD 1179(SC), 2004 PTD 1048 (H.C), 2017 PTD 2380
(HC), 2007 PTD 932(Trib), and PTCL 2001 CL 509 (SC), etc. He, therefore,
pleaded that the appeal be accepted.
5. On
the contrary, the learned DR for the Department has supported the order of the
learned CIR(A) and contended that the order passed by the learned CIR(A) is a
speaking order and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He argued that
section 33 of the Act provides that if any registered person does not file the
return and pay the due tax as required under section 26, he shall be subjected
to penalty as provided in section 33 ibid. By providing this penal provision of
law, the intention of the legislature becomes all the more clear that
irrespective of the fact whether tax has been paid or not, filing the return is
mandatory and non-submission of return within due date would amount to
commission of an offence and carries punishment in the shape of penalty. He
asserted that the penalty and default surcharge under sections 33 and 34 of the
Act respectively can only be imposed under section 11 of the Act and there are
no other separate provisions available to levy such charges. To substantiate
his submissions, he placed reliance on STR No.04 of 2013 (Lahore High Court,
Bahawalpur Bench), W.P No.4698 of 2016 (Islamabad High Court), STR No.184 of
2011 (Islamabad High Court), STA No.654/KB/2018 and STA No.84/KB/2014.
6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material
on record, and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable
legal position. The undisputed facts, relevant to the disposal of the instant
appeal, are that the appellant for the tax periods under consideration,
admittedly filed the returns and paid the tax thereon voluntarily after the due
date however, prior to issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer under
section 11(1) of the Act. Thus, the following question emerges keeping in view
the aforesaid admitted facts and needs consideration by this Tribunal that:-
i. Whether any of the provisions of section 11 and in particular
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act vests with the power to the Assessing
Officer to initiate the proceedings against a person who has filed his return and paid the tax due thereon after the due
date but voluntarily, prior to issuance of a notice, for the purpose of
imposition of penalty and default surcharge alone under section 33 and 34 of
the Act respectively?
Prior to answer to the question, the scheme of the law has
to be seen. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section. Sub-section (9) of
section 2 defines the expression “due date”. Similarly, sub-sections (29A) and
(34) of section 2 define the expressions “sales tax” and “tax” respectively.
Section 6 prescribes the time and manner of payment of sales tax, sub-section
(2) of section 6 expressly provides that the tax in respect of taxable supplies
made during a tax period shall be paid by the registered person at the time of
filing of return in respect of the corresponding tax period. Section 7
describes the mechanism for the determination of tax liability. A plain reading
of sections 3, 6, and 7 conjunctively shows that inadmissible adjustment of
input tax amounts to tax not levied or short levied. The inadmissible
adjustment of input tax in a relevant tax period is liable to be recovered in
the manner as provided under the Act. Likewise, if a person has not paid the
due tax within the time he is liable to pay a penalty and default surcharge
under sections 33 and 34 of the Act respectively. Section 33 of the Act
describes the various offenses/violation in column No.1 of the Table. The
penalty against the corresponding offense is mentioned in column No.2 thereof.
Clause 1 of column No.1 of the Table contemplates the offence where any person
fails to furnish a return within the due date. The penalty of such offence has
been prescribed in column No.2 which envisages that such a person shall pay a
penalty of Rs.5000/- provided that in case a person files the return within ten
days of the due date, he shall pay a penalty of one hundred rupees of each day
of default. Clause 5 of column No.1 of the Table prescribes offence where any
person who fails to deposit the amount of tax due or any part thereof in the
time or manner laid down under this Act or rules or orders made thereunder.
Correspondingly column No.2 of the table contemplates the penalty. Next is the
liability of default surcharge under section 34 of the Act. Section 34 provides
that failure on the part of the registered person to pay the tax due or any part
thereof, whether willfully or otherwise in the time or the manner specified
under the Act, rules or notification made thereunder or tax credit, or if a
refund is claimed or an adjustment is made which is not admissible, or the rate
of zero percent of supplies made during the course of taxable activity has been
incorrectly applied, then such a registered person shall, in addition to the
tax due, pay default surcharge at the rates specified in clause (a) to (c) of
sub-section (1) of section 34 ibid.
7. The
legislative intent is obvious from a plain reading of the provisions of
sections 33 and 34 of the Act. The legislature has only described the offences
and penalties in section 33 ibid. Similarly, the legislature has described the
categories of the registered persons and eventualities which would attract
default surcharge under section 34 of the Act. However, in both the sections
the procedure for levy and collection of penalty and default surcharge alone
without invoking the provision of section 11 of the Act has not been given like
other taxing statutes. In the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 where pari materia provisions for imposition
of penalty and default surcharge are available in the shape of section 182 and
205 of the Ordinance respectively, there been prescribes an inbuilt mechanism
for assessment/ imposition of penalty and default surcharge under the said
provisions. It is also pertinent to mention that the Sales Tax Act 1990 does
not give any statutory right of appeal to the registered person against the
order passed alone under sections 33 and 34 of the Act whereas under the Income
Tax Ordinance a separate right of appeal is available to the aggrieved person
if the order is passed under section 182 and 205 of the Ordinance against him.
8. In the backdrop
of the aforesaid analysis, now we turn to the question. It would be beneficial
to first reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990
and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which deals with the penalty and default
surcharge: -
11. Assessment of Tax & Recovery of Tax not
levied or short levied or erroneously refunded.– (1) Where a person who is
required to file a tax return fails to file the return for a tax period by the
due date or pays an amount which, for some miscalculation is less than the
amount of tax actually payable, an officer of Inland Revenue shall, after a
notice to show cause to such person, make an order for assessment of tax, including imposition of penalty
and default surcharge in accordance with sections 33 and 34:
Provided that where a
person required to file a tax return files the return after the due date and
pays the amount of tax payable in accordance with the tax return along with
default surcharge and penalty, the notice to show cause and the order of assessment
shall abate.
(2) ……………..
33.
Offences and penalties: - Whoever commits any offence described in
column (1) of the Table below shall, in addition to and not in derogation of
any punishment to which he may be liable under any other law, be liable to the
penalty mentioned against that offence in column (2) thereof:
TABLE
|
Offences |
Penalties |
Section of the Act to which offence
has reference |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
1. Where any
person fails to furnish a return within the due date. |
Such person
shall pay a penalty of five thousand rupees: Provided that in case a person
files a return within ten days of the due date, he shall pay a penalty of one
hundred rupees for each day of default |
26 |
|
2………… |
…………… |
………. |
|
3………. |
………….. |
…………. |
|
4……………. |
………….. |
…………. |
|
5. Any
person who fails to deposit the amount of tax due or any part thereof in the
time or manner laid down under this Act or rules or orders made thereunder. |
Such person
shall pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or five percent of the amount of
the tax involved, whichever is higher: Provided that, if the amount of tax or
any part thereof is paid within ten days from the due date, the defaulter
shall pay a penalty of five hundred rupees for each day of default: Provided
further that no penalty shall be imposed when any miscalculation is made for
the first time during a year: Provided further that if the amount of tax due
is not paid even after the expiry of a period of sixty days of issuance of
the notice for such payments by an officer of Inland Revenue, not below the rank
of Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue, the defaulter shall, further be
liable, upon conviction by a Special Judge, to imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to amount equal to
the amount of tax involved, or with both |
3,
6, 7 and 48 |
|
…………. |
…………… |
………….. |
34. Default Surcharge.– (1)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 11, if a registered person does not
pay the tax due or any part thereof, whether willfully or otherwise, in time or
in the manner specified under this Act, rules or notifications issued
thereunder or claims a tax credit, refund or makes an adjustment which is not
admissible to him, or incorrectly applies the rate of zero percent to supplies
made by him, he shall, in addition to the tax due, pay default surcharge at the
rate mentioned below:—
(a) the person liable to pay any amount of tax
or charge or the amount of refund erroneously made shall pay default surcharge
at the rate of twelve percent per annum, of the amount of tax due or the amount
of refund erroneously made; and
(b) Omitted
(c) in case, the default is on account of tax
fraud, the person who has committed tax fraud shall pay default surcharge at
the rate of two percent per month, of the amount of tax evaded or the amount of
refund fraudulently claimed, till such time the entire liability including the
amount of default surcharge is paid.
(2) For the purpose of calculation of default
surcharge, –
(a) in the case of inadmissible input tax
credit or refund, the period of default shall be reckoned from the date of
adjustment of such credit or, as the case may be, refund is received; and
(b) in the case of non-payment of tax or part
thereof, the period of default shall be reckoned from the 16th day of a month
(following the due date of the tax period to which the default relates) to the
day preceding the date on which the tax due is actually paid.
Explanation:
– For the purpose of this section tax due does not include the amount of
penalty.
RELEVANT PARI
MATERIA PROVISIONS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ORDINANCE, 2001
182. Offences and
penalties: - (1) Any person who commits any offence specified in
column (2) of the Table below shall, in addition to and not in derogation of
any punishment to which he may be liable under this Ordinance or any other law,
be liable to the penalty mentioned against that offence in column (3) thereof:—
TABLE
|
Sr
No. |
Offences |
Penalties |
Section of
the Ordinance to which offence has reference |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
1. |
Where any person fails to
furnish a return of income as required under section 114 within the due date. |
Such person shall pay a
penalty equal to 0.1% of the tax payable in respect of that tax year for each
day of default subject to a maximum penalty of 50% of the tax payable
provided that if the penalty worked out as aforesaid is less than forty
thousand rupees or no tax is payable for that tax year such person shall pay
a penalty of forty thousand rupees Provided that If
seventy-five percent of the income is from salary and the amount of income
under salary is less than five million Rupees, the minimum amount of penalty
shall be five thousand Rupees. Explanation.— For the purposes of this
entry, it is declared that the expression “tax payable” means the tax
chargeable on the taxable income on the basis of assessment made or treated
to have been made under sections 120, 121, 122, or 122C. |
114 and 118 |
|
1A |
------------- |
------------ |
------------- |
|
1AA |
-------------- |
------------- |
------------- |
|
1AAA |
-------------- |
-------------- |
------------- |
|
2. |
-------------- |
-------------- |
-------------- |
|
3. |
-------------- |
-------------- |
--------------- |
|
4. |
-------------- |
--------------- |
--------------- |
|
4A. |
-------------- |
---------------- |
---------------- |
|
4B. |
------------------- |
------------------- |
-------------- |
|
5. |
Any person who fails to
deposit the amount of tax due or any part thereof in the time or manner laid
down under this Ordinance or rules made thereunder. Provided that if the
person opts to pay the tax due on the basis of an order under section 129 on
or before the due date given in the notice under sub-section (2) of section
137 issued in consequence of the said order, and does not file an appeal
under section 131 the penalty payable shall be reduced by 50%. |
Such person shall pay a
penalty of five percent of the amount of the tax in default. For the second
default an additional penalty of 25% of the amount of tax in default. For the
third and subsequent defaults an additional penalty of 50% of the amount of tax
in default. |
137 |
|
6. |
------------ |
--------------- |
----------------- |
(2)
The penalties specified under sub-section (1) shall be applied in a consistent
manner and no penalty shall be
payable unless an order in writing is passed by the Commissioner, Commissioner
(Appeals), or the Appellate Tribunal after providing an opportunity of being
heard to the person concerned:
Provided
that where the taxpayer admits his default he may voluntarily pay the amount of
penalty due under this section.
(3)
Where a Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal makes an order under
sub-section (2), the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the
case may be, shall immediately serve a copy of the order on the Commissioner
and thereupon all the provision of this Ordinance relating to the recovery of
penalty shall apply as if the order was made by the Commissioner.
(4)
Where in consequence of any order under this Ordinance, the amount of tax in
respect of which any penalty payable under sub-section (1) is reduced, the
amount of penalty shall be reduced accordingly.
205. Default surcharge. — (1) A
person who fails to pay –
(a) any
tax, excluding the advance tax under section 147 and default surcharge under
this section;
(b) any
penalty; or
(c)
any amount referred to in section 140
or 141,………..
(1A) ………………
(IB) ………………
(2) ……………..
(4) ……………..
(5) The Commissioner shall make an assessment of
any default surcharge imposed under this Part in accordance with the provisions
of Part II of this Chapter as if the default surcharge were tax.
(6) …………….
(7) ……………..
9. Interpretation of
Section 11(1)
Statutory provision is already reproduced above.
Breakdown
of the said provision
In the context of the issue under adjudication, the
breakdown of the provision is as under: -
Default by the subject of the provision
i.
Where a person, who is
required to file a tax return fails to file the return for a tax period by the
due date or
ii.
pay an amount which, for some
miscalculation is less than the amount of tax actually payable,
Consequences
An officer of Inland Revenue shall, after a notice to show
cause to such person, make an order for assessment of tax, including imposition
of penalty and default surcharge in accordance with sections 33 and 34:
Conditional exception
Provided that where a person required to file a tax return
files the return after the due date and pays the amount of tax payable in
accordance with the tax return along with default surcharge and penalty,
the notice to show cause and the order of assessment shall abate.
Part of the provision requiring interpretation
“make
an order for assessment of tax, including
imposition of penalty and default surcharge in accordance with section 33 and
34”
It
is argued by the learned AR that it is a settled principle of law that no order
for penalty or default surcharge alone can be passed by the department in the
absence of assessment order vis-à-vis tax due. If there is no tax due, which
could be determined under Section 11, then a penal action in the form of
default surcharge or imposing penalty cannot be taken against the registered
person. On the other hand, learned DR submits that where a tax return is not
filed by the due date and the actual tax is paid with the return after the due
date the registered person is under obligation to pay penalty and default surcharge
under Sections 33 and 34 respectively. It is further submitted by the learned
DR that the levy of default surcharge is specified under Section 34(1) at a
fixed rate and is worked out in accordance with the default period starting
from the due date and ends on the date when the tax due is actually paid.
We have heard the submissions made by the learned
representatives and also keenly gone through the case laws relied upon by both parties.
However, none of the judgment has addressed the question at hand. We are of the
opinion that the Inland Revenue Officer cannot make an order for
imposing a penalty or default surcharge in accordance with Sections 33 and 34
respectively without making an assessment order. In holding so, we are
enlightened by the proviso to the sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Sales
Tax Act, 1990. This reads that the show cause notice shall abate where the
person has filed the return after the due date and paid the actual amount of
tax in accordance with the return along with default surcharge and penalty.
Where, a person files the return after the due date and pays the amount of tax
payable in accordance with the tax return voluntarily prior to the show cause
notice then there is no amount of tax due left based on which, either show
cause notice could have been issued or ensuing penalty or default surcharge
could be imposed. The triggering point under this provision remains that if a
person has not been filing his return or for some miscalculation has been
paying the tax less than the amount of tax actually payable the provisions of
section 11 may be invoked. The provisions of section 33 and 34 of the Act are
inapplicable for the imposition of penalty/default surcharge alone under the
said section for the reason that these charging provisions do not provide for
passing of order under these provisions unlike the pari materia provisions of sub-section (2) of section 182 and
sub-section (5) of section 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. This
interpretation is also in line with the word “including” used in the
legislative text which reads ”make an order for assessment of tax, including
imposition of penalty and default surcharge in accordance with section 33 and
34” [underlined for emphasis only]. The term implies that the
order imposing a penalty or default surcharge is an essential part of the
assessment of actual tax. Hence, no order alone for imposing a penalty or
default surcharge can be passed by an Inland Revenue Officer under Sections 33
and 34 ibid, where a person has filed the return and paid his tax due after the
due date but prior to show cause notice.
We are mindful of the legislative anomaly
that where Section 34 imposes default surcharge or Section 33 imposes a penalty,
then that must be levied but unfortunately, there is no machinery provision in
the Sales Tax Act, 1990 to address this anomaly except the mode of assessment
of tax due under section 11 ibid.
There are several instances in the provisions related to offences, penalties,
default surcharge, etc where the legislation is silent as to the enforcement of
the provision and the right to appeal. For example under section 33 of the Act
as under:-
TABLE
|
Sr No. |
Offences |
Penalties |
Section
of the Ordinance to which offence has reference |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
2. |
Any person who fails to issue an invoice when required under this
Act. |
Such person shall pay a penalty of five thousand rupees or three
percent of the amount of the tax involved, whichever is higher. |
23 |
|
3. |
Any person who unauthorizedly issues an invoice in which an amount
of tax is specified |
Such person shall pay a penalty of ten thousand rupees or five percent
of the amount of the tax involved, whichever is higher. |
3,7 and 23 |
|
4. |
Any person who fails to notify the changes of material nature in
the particulars of registration of the taxable activity. |
Such person shall pay a penalty of five thousand rupees. |
14 |
|
6. |
Any person who repeats erroneous calculation in the return during
a year whereby the amount of tax less than the actual tax due is paid. |
Such person shall pay a penalty of five thousand rupees or three
percent of the amount of the tax involved, whichever is higher. |
7 and 26 |
|
7 |
ETC |
……………………… |
|
For what has been discussed above, we are of
the considered view that the provision of section 11(1) of the Act does not
allow recovery and imposition of penalty and default surcharge alone where liability
on account of the principal amount of tax stands discharged voluntarily prior
to initiation of proceedings under section 11(1) of the Act. If the amount of
penalty is considered to be a part of “tax” as used in the provisions, then
there was no need for the legislature to use the words penalty and default
surcharge separately and independently. The intention of the legislature is
manifestly clear that such registered persons who deposit the due amount of
sales tax, the provision of section 11 of the Act are therefore ab-initio not attracted.
10. In
view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the orders
passed by the lower authorities are annulled. Let this order be sent to the
learned Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Member Legal, and Member Policy for
information and necessary action to resolve the anomaly discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs.
11. This
order consists of (14) pages and each page bears my signature.
|
|
Sd/- (M. M. AKRAM) JUDICIAL
MEMBER |
|
Sd/- (DR. TAUQEER IRTIZA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER |
|
CERTIFICATE U/S 5 OF THE LAW REPORT ACT
This case is fit for reporting
as it settles the principles highlighted above.
(M. M. AKRAM)
JUDICIAL
MEMBER
No comments:
Post a Comment