ORDER MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.- in this appeal under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the appellant has proposed the following questions of law for our opinion:-- "(1) Whether or not in a transaction of supply, "the value of supply" in terms of Section 2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, would be constructed as including the value of goods, as well as all allied and ancillary functions/services which are to be carried out by the supplier as integral part and parcel of supply leading to finalization of the transaction of supply?
(2) Whether or not the installation services provided by a supplier in respect of goods so supplied should be construed as integral part of supply in terms of Section 2(33), ibid?
(3) Whether or not the concept of value-added tax (VAT) as envisaged in the Sales Tax Act, 1990, would not be injured by the order of the learned Tribunal if the charges or incidental or allied intangible services/functions treated separately from materials, such as delivery, warranty and installation, are allowed to be excluded from the term 'value of supply' as defined in Section 2(46), ibid?"
2. The short point involved is whether the charges received for installation of the generators sold by the* respondent are to be included in the value of supply and the incidental question is, "whether the rendering of such services is included in taxable activity"?
3. We have heard Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Faisal Siddiqul, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The Tribunal has held that receiving of installation charges is not to be included in the value of supply. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal has taken us through the definitions contained in Section 2(33),
(35) and (46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. He is not able to show that the receiving of installation charges could be included in the value of supply by any stretch of imagination in the value of supply in accordance with the law as prevailing in the year 2000. Only substantial questions of law are to be entertained by this Court. As no substantial question of law requiring interpretation has been shown, therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.