| Case ID |
17aae18a-bc61-4a4c-b826-aa884e9d2e9c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
S.T.R. No. 90 of 2013 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 30, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court ruled that it lacked the jurisdiction to change findings of fact made by the Appellate Tribunal. The court emphasized that its role was limited to advisory jurisdiction, and it could not adjudicate on the proposed questions of law while exercising such jurisdiction. The court dismissed the reference application, reinforcing the principle that factual determinations made by the Appellate Tribunal are binding and cannot be overturned by the High Court. The findings indicated that the taxpayer was entitled to input tax claims based on the status of the suppliers at the time of transactions, despite later blacklisting. The decision highlights the procedural importance of maintaining the integrity of tax law applications and the need for clear evidence in tax disputes. |
| Summary |
In the case of S.T.R. No. 90 of 2013, the Lahore High Court addressed significant issues regarding the jurisdiction of the court in tax matters under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of input tax adjustments claimed by the respondent taxpayer, which were challenged by the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the suppliers were not blacklisted at the time of the transactions. The High Court reiterated that it could not alter factual findings and dismissed the reference application. This case underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedural standards in tax law and reinforces the boundaries of judicial review in tax disputes. Key sections of the Sales Tax Act and Rules were invoked, emphasizing compliance with tax regulations and the consequences of supplier blacklisting. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving tax refunds and input adjustments, illustrating the delicate balance between tax authority enforcement and taxpayer rights. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE,
MESSRS MASHA ALLAH PAPER BOARD MILLS
|
| Judges |
SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, JUSTICE,
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Applicant,
Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent-Taxpayer
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, FAISALABAD
|
| Respondents |
ANOTHER,
MESSRS MASHA ALLAH PAPER BOARD MILLS, FAISALABAD
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 654,
2018 PTD 775,
(2018) 118 TAX 292,
2018 PTCL 818
|
| Other Citations |
Messrs F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 2014 SCMR 907,
Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office-II v. Messrs Sony Traders Wine Shop 2015 PTD 2287,
Messrs Pak Suzuki Motor Company Limited, Karachi v. Collector of Customs, Appraisement Collectorate, Custom House, Karachi 2005 PTD 2600,
Commissioner of Income Tax, Legal Division, R.T.O. v. Messrs Matrix Press (Pvt.) Ltd. 2016 PTD 97
|
| Laws Involved |
Sales Tax Act, 1990,
Sales Tax Rules, 2006
|
| Sections |
2(14),
2(33),
7,
8,
8(1)(d),
8(1)(ca),
8A,
10,
22,
26,
47,
47(5),
73(ii),
12(5)
|