| Case ID |
d5f7738b-97c9-4284-a1b4-aa102a235a25 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
MA(R) STA No. 85/IB/2019 IN MA(R) STA No. 47/IB/20 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 26, 2021 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 26, 2021 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue dismissed the application for rectification filed by M/S Khalid Qingqi Centre. The Tribunal found that the application was not maintainable as the applicant had not availed the statutory remedy provided under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant failed to appear for the hearing of the previous rectification application, leading to an ex-parte decision. The Tribunal also emphasized the doctrine of res judicata, stating that the principles of finality in litigation should be upheld to prevent endless disputes over the same matter. The order was concluded by stating that the applicant's fresh application was dismissed, and the previous decision stood final. |
| Summary |
In the case of M/S Khalid Qingqi Centre versus The Commissioner Inland Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed a miscellaneous application for rectification filed under section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core issue revolved around the applicant's failure to follow the due process and statutory remedies available to them after an adverse decision. The Tribunal reviewed the facts surrounding the previous orders and highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal procedures. The decision emphasized the legal principles of res judicata and the necessity of timely action in legal proceedings. This case serves as a critical reminder for parties involved in tax-related disputes to be diligent in following legal protocols and to avoid unnecessary litigation. Key terms such as 'Sales Tax Act', 'Civil Procedure Code', and 'Appellate Tribunal rules' are vital for understanding the legal framework applicable in similar cases. The outcome of this case reinforces the significance of procedural compliance in tax law and the implications of failing to present a case effectively before the Tribunal. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M. M. AKRAM,
IMTIAZ AHMED
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Naeem ul Haq,
Mr. Muhammad Akram
|
| Petitioners |
M/S KHALID QINGQI CENTRE, JAUHARABAD ROAD, KHUSHAB
|
| Respondents |
THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, SARGODHA
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 16
|
| Other Citations |
2019 CLC 483
|
| Laws Involved |
Sales Tax Act, 1990,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010
|
| Sections |
47,
57,
11,
22
|