' The appellant has filed appeal before this Tribunal against Order-in-Appeal No,110 of 2012 dated 21-3-2012 by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), Faisalabad on the following grounds:--
(1) That the order of the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeal-I, Islamabad, dated August 24, 2012 is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
(2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) did not provide proper opportunity of hearing which is against principles of justice and many decided case laws. This is without any lawful authority as per decision of honorable High Court of Pakistan reported as 2006 PTD 116 and may other decided case-laws.
(3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) did not give any decision on the ground that the learned Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (The assessing officer) Audit-1, Zone-1 ECU, Islamabad, has also not given proper opportunity of hearing which is against principles of justice and many decided case laws. This is without any lawful authority as per decision of honorable High Court of Pakistan reported as 2006 PTD 116 and .May other decided case-laws.
(4) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) did not give any decision on the ground that the learned assessing officer has issued show cause notice without mentioning any section. In accordance with many case-laws, this show cause notice has no authority and is therefore cancelable. Issuance of show cause notice without mentioning any section is without any lawful authority as per decision of honorable High Court of Pakistan reported as PTCL 2003 CL 362 and Supreme Court 2005 PTD 480.
(5) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) did not give any decision on the ground that the learned assessing officer has also not followed proper procedures of audit in accordance with provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 which is against section 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Sales Tax General Order No,3 of 2004.
(6) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) has misdirected himself in not allowing admissible inputs tax without appreciating the law and true facts of the case and without considering the fact that all relevant supporting were provided. This is without any lawful authority as per decisions reported as 2012 PTD 1113, 2012 PTD 885, 2011 PTD 2679, 2011 PTD 2822 and 2012 PTD 885.
(7) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) has misdirected himself in maintaining the order of the learned assessing officer to charge output tax on plea of short/non-payment of our tax without appreciating the law and true facts of the case and without considering the fact that all relevant supporting were provided. This is without any lawful authority as per decisions reported as 2012 PTD 73.
(8) That the learned Commissioner (Appeal) has misdirected himself and charged default surcharge and penalties which is against the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and true facts of the case.
(9) (9) It is earnestly prayed to direct the learned assessing officer to vacate the order. ? Accept the declared version and ? Delete all penalties and surcharges.
(10) That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds appeal.
2. Brief facts of the ease are that during the scrutiny of the sales tax returns and summaries filed by Messrs Hotel One (Pvt.) Ltd., House No,18, Street No,26, F-6/2, Islamabad for tax period July, 2009 to June, 2010. It was observed that the unit had suppressed of output tax and had claimed inadmissible input tax in violation of section 8(1)(ca) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and the impugned order passed by the adjudicating officer to the extent of Rs,2,893,106 under section 36(1) read with 11(2) along with default surcharge and under section 34 and penalty under section 33(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.
3. This appeal came up for hearing on 11-4-2013. The central issue in this appeal is that the appellant's input tax claim was denied by the respondent on the ground that supplier's sale summary did not reflect the payment of output tax by the appellant. The appellant claims that he has evidenced of payment of output tax but the supplier's sale summary was filed at the time when the tax demand had been confirmed by the learned CIR(A). In this scenario the appellant deserves an opportunity of establishing his contention in the light of the entries in the sale summary furnished by him to the respondent. Therefore, this case is remanded to the assessing officer for allowing the assessee another opportunity to justify his input tax claim and its disposal on merit.
4. This order consists (3) pages and each page bears my signature.