' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN J.---Messrs Syntronics Limited, appellant herein, has assailed the judgment, dated 29-6-2002 of the learned Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar, on the following question of law:-- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the honourable Tribunal has misinterpreted S.R.O. No,578(I)/98 more specifically its Entry No,7 for not allowing input adjustment against tax paid vide Invoices No, 1513 dated 23-10-1999, No,,1514 dated 23-10-1999, No, 1209, dated 1-8-199 and No, 2608, dated 18-12-1999 (Annexures V to VIII) on purchase of wires and cables used within and in conjunction with plant and machinery."
2. The learned counsel by referring to the Webster's New Words College Dictionary 3rd Edition, contended that when the words "stock in trade" means goods kept available for sale, at a store or shop including tools, materials etc. Used in carrying on a trade or a business or any resources, practices or devices characteristically employed by a given person or group, cables and wires used to facilitate the electric supply to the machinery operated by the electric power, would be "stock in trade" to all intents and purposes and that thelearned Appellate Tribunal by failing to appreciate this important aspect of the case failed to appreciate the law. The learned counsel next contended that when in the case of Messrs Chashma Sugar Mills v. Collector of Customs Sales Tax and Central Excise (Appeals), Peshawar and 2 others, rendered in Appeal No, ST 17/PB/2004 decided on 30-9-2006, the learned Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, allowed input tax adjustment on wires and cables, the appellant couldn't be treated differently.
3. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that where cables and wires are not used for the manufacture or production of taxable supplies, no input tax adjustment can be allowed thereon and that the view of the learned Appellate Tribunal being based on proper appreciation of law, is not open to any exception.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Before we discuss the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and answer the question urged in this appeal, we would like to refer to sections 7, 8 of the Sales Tax Act and the S.R.O. Thereunder which read as under;-- "(7) Determination of tax liability.---(1) For the purpose of determining his tax liability in respect of taxable supplies made during a tax period, a registered person shall be entitled to deduct input tax paid during the tax period for the purpose of taxable supplies made, or to be made, by him from the output tax that is due from him in respect of that tax period and to make such other adjustments as are specified in section 9.
(2) A registered person shall not be entitled to deduct input tax from output tax unless:-
(i) in case of a claim for input tax in respect of a taxable supply made in Pakistan, he holds a tax invoice in respect of such supply for which a return is furnished;
(ii) in case of goods imported into Pakistan, he holds the bill of entry duly cleared by the customs under section 79 or section 104 of the Customs Act, 1969.
(iii)
(iv)
"(8) Tax credit not allowed.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a registered person shall not be entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax paid on---
(a) the goods used or to be used for any purpose other than for the manufacture or production of taxable goods or for taxable supplies made or to be made by him;
(b) any other goods which the Federal Government may, by a notification in the official Gazette, specify and
(c) on the goods under subsections (IA) and (5) of section 3.
(2) If a registered person deals in taxable and non-taxable supplies, he can reclaim only such proportion of the input tax as is attributable to taxable supplies in such manner as may be specified by the Board.
(3) No person other than a registered person shall make any deduction or reclaim input tax in respect of taxable supplies made or to be made by him.
(4) No person engaged in taxable activity specified in section 3A shall make any deduction or reclaim input tax, nor shall this tax be creditable as input tax for the taxable activity of any other registered person.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any decision of any Court, for the purposes of this section, no input tax credit shall be allowed to the persons who paid fixed tax under any provisions of this Act as it existed at any time prior to the first day of December, 1998.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any provision of this Act, the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify any goods or class of goods which a registered or enrolled person cannot supply to any person who is not registered or enrolled under this Act.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the provisions of this Act, the Federal Government, by notification in the official Gazette, specify any goods or class of goods in respect of which the provisions of section 3A shall not apply."
"SPECIFICATION OF GOODS ON WHICH INPUT TAX CANNO T BE CLAIMED.
' Notification No,S.R.O. 578(1)/98, dated 12th June, 1998.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and in supersession of Ministry. Of Finance and Economic Affairs Notification No,S.R.O. 1307(1)/97, dated the 20th December, 1997, the Federal Government is pleased to specify that the following goods acquired otherwise than as stock in trade by a registered person to be the goods in respect of which input tax shall not be claimed namely:--
(1) Vehicles falling in Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969).
(2) Building materials.
(3) Office equipment (excluding electronic cash registers) furniture, fixture and furnishings.
(4) Electrical and gas appliances.
(5) Telecommunication equipments.
(6) Generators and generating sets.
(7) Wires and cables and ordinary electrical fittings.
(8) Crockery, cutlery and utensils, etcetera.
(9) Supply of foods, beverages, garments, fabrics, etcetera and consumption on entertainments.
(10) Gifts and give-aways.
(2) This Notification shall take effect from the 1st day of July, 1998.
6. A perusal of sections 7 and 8 of the Act would reveal that the former deals with the rule of adjustment of input tax while the latter deals with its exceptions. The latter also highlights the power of the Federal Government to specify the goods by a notification in the official Gazette on which the said person shall not be entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax. The question whether the wires and cables could be used in the manufacture or production of taxable supplies can be answered in a simple no, when the appellant being supplier of woven fiber staple bags have nothing to do with any of them. Nor it is the case of the appellant that any of them is used in the manufacture or production of taxable supplies. Its case, as canvassed at the bar, is that these goods being covered by the words "stock in trade" would entitle it to reclaim or deduct input tax.
But the "words used otherwise than as stock in trade" when read in the light of section 8 of the Act, leave no doubt in our mind that they mean the goods used in the manufacture and production of taxable supplies. These words cannot be read in isolation, out of context and independently of the provisions o f the parent statute. Nor can they be strained and stretched to an unw orkable extreme to include what the legislature has excluded in expre s and unequivocal terms. In case we interpret these words in the way, t he learned counsel for the appellant wants us to do, it would defeat the very purpose, the S.R.O. Was issued for. Not only that it would also run counter to the parent statute. The Courts of law would never lean in favour of an interpretation of a S.R.O. Or any other piece of deleg ated legislation, which runs counter to the parent statute. In such event uality, they are required to reconcile them, if possible. If not, it is the pa rent statute and not the S.R.O. That would prevail. Wires and cables, by no stretch of imagination, can be brought within the mischief of the w ords "stock in trade", when they cannot be said to have be n employed characteristically by the appellant, even if, we see them I the light of the meaning given in the Webster's New Words Diet ionary. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that no input tax adjust ment can be claimed on wires and cables. The impugned finding bein g based on proper appreciation of law is unassailable.
7. The argument that when in the case of Messrs Chas hma Sugar Mills v. Collector of Customs Sales Tax and Central Excise ( Appeals), Peshawar and 2 others, rendered in Appeal No,ST 17/PB/2004 decided on 30-9-2006, the learned appellate Tribunal, has allowed nput tax adjustment on wires and cables, the appellant cannot be treated differently, has not impressed us to the least, firstly because it being against the provisions contained in section 8 of the Sales Tax Act and the S.R.O. Thereunder has no force altogether and secondly because one or any number of wrong decision cannot justify another wrong decision.
8. For the reasons discussed above, this appeal being without is dismissed and the question raised there in is answered accordingly.
Appeal dismi sed.