| Case ID |
305ba004-d4af-4475-b45a-6331e77969f1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
M.A.(Cond.) No. 149/LB of 2010 and S.T.A. No. 86/L |
| Decision Date |
Sep 14, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to comply with the requirements laid out in Rule 28 of the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2006. The appellant's claim for a refund was rejected due to late submission of necessary documents and data on the prescribed software beyond the stipulated sixty days. The authorities upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing the importance of adhering to procedural rules even in the pursuit of justice. The Tribunal noted that while justice should not be sacrificed for technicalities, the appellant had indeed neglected to adhere to the established protocols. As a result, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, but the merits of the case did not favor the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a refund claim filed by Messrs Chaudhry Brothers Cotton Industries under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, specifically concerning the rules for claiming refunds as stipulated in the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2006. The appellant sought a refund of Rs.236,755 due to excess input tax paid along with electricity bills for the period between September 2006 to May 2007. However, the claim was rejected by the Deputy Collector (Refund) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the allowed time frame. The rejection was subsequently upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The crux of the matter lies in whether the appellant adhered to the procedural requirements for filing the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that adherence to procedural rules is essential, even when justice is at stake, and ruled that the claim was rightly rejected due to non-compliance with Rule 28 regarding timely submission of supportive documents. This case highlights the balance between procedural technicalities and the pursuit of justice, reinforcing the notion that parties must comply with established legal frameworks to succeed in their claims. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
CHAUHDHRY BROTHERS COTTON INDUSTRIES,
CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER,
ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
|
| Lawyers |
Khadim Hussain Maitla, ITP for Appellant,
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs CHAUDHRY BROTHERS COTTON INDUSTRIES, BAHAWALPUR
|
| Respondents |
COLLECTOR (APPEALS) (REFUND), CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN
|
| Citations |
2011 SLD 148,
(2011) 103 TAX 57,
2011 PTD 212
|
| Other Citations |
(1987) 56 Tax 130 (S.C. Ind.),
2002 PTD 549,
2002 PTD 506,
Pfizer Laboratory Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 64
|
| Laws Involved |
Sales Tax Act, 1990,
Sales Tax Rules, 2006
|
| Sections |
46,
66,
28
|