Pakistan Case Law← Search
2005 PTD 1962

COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI vs

Citation2005 PTD 1962
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Special Sales Tax Appeal No.570 of 2004
Date2005-05-11
Judge(s)Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

1. By this appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, order, dated 12-7-2004, passed by the Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, in Sales Tax Appeal No. K-196/2002/ 6978, has been challenged by the Collector of Sales Tax Karachi.

2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that by this order. Order in-Original, dated 11-5-2002 has been set aside, whereby the Deputy Collector has ordered that in the first instance the course provided under clause (e) to section 2(46) of the Sales.Tax Act, 1990, will be followed, whereby the Valuation Committee in terms thereof will determine the value of the goods within six weeks from the date of the order and in case the issue is not resolved in the above terms, then value of the supply shall be deemed to be the value in open market as provided under section 2 of subsection

(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and accordingly Sales Tax of Rs.2,225,431 will be recoverable from the respondent along with additional tax due plus penalty equal to 3% of the amount in terms of section 33(2)(cc) of Sales Tax Act, 1990.

3. Contention raised by Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal is that insofar as the second part of the Order-in- Original imposing/Sales Tax on the respondent is concerned, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside such part of the order but order of the Tribunal setting aside the order-inoriginal as a whole is absolutely unwarranted by law, therefore it is liable to be set aside.

4. "(e) In case where there is sufficient reasons to believe that the value of a supply has not been correctly declared in the invoice, the value determined by the Valuation Committee comprising representatives of trade and the Sales Tax Department constituted by the. Collector."

5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that first course adopted by the Assessing Officer/Dy. Collector in referring the matter for determination of value of supply by the Valuation Committee was appropriate order and this source should have been followed by the Department, instead of enforcing the recovery of sales tax as contemplated in the other part of the order-in-original. .

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search