The titled miscellaneous application seeking suspension of the blacklisting order dated 29-05-2014 as well as sales tax appeal seeking vacation of the said blacklisting order, have been filed at the instance of the registered person.
2. We take up the appeal preferred by the registered person against the blacklisting order dated 29.05.2014 recorded by CIR, Zone-VIII, RTO, Lahore.
3. The facts in brief leading to the instant appeal are that the appellant/registered person is engaged in manufacturing business. During the first round of litigation while disposing of miscellaneous application as well as appeal filed by the registered person, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the learned Commissioner vide order dated 23- 01-2014 for passing a speaking order after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing as well verification of record. In compliance with the direction of this Tribunal proceedings were initiated by way of issuance of fresh notice on 28-02-2014 which was replied by the registered person vide letter dated 26-03-2014 intimating that complete record is with the RTO authorities where the audit is being completed. On the next date of hearing i,e,, 08.04.2014 the Deputy Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation-FBR Lahore was required to furnish his comments, which were given vide letter No, 4460 dated 21.04.2014, wherein it was intimated that the registered person had made non-compliance of the notices issued to him and that complete record is with the RTO is not tenable as only the photocopies of the record were submitted. On the basis of these comments, proceedings were culminated in passing of Blacklisting order dated 29.05.2014, which has been impugned before us.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the registered person has termed the action of CIR, Zone-VIII, RTO-II, Lahore to be arbitrary and contrary to law. He contends that the impugned Blacklisting order has been passed by resorting to provisions of Section 21(2), which provides that if the registered person is found to be involved in issuance of fake invoices or committing tax fraud then the commissioner is empowered to blacklist such person. He has emphasized that registered 'person of the case in hand is neither involved in issuance of fake invoices nor commission of any tax fraud, therefore, blacklisting ordered by the CIR in the case in hand is quite unjustified. He further contends that in the impugned show cause notice allegation regarding claiming of re d on the basis of fake invoices issued by the M/s. A.A. Enterprises ha been leveled against the registered person, against which he has omitted before us photocopy of online taxpayers verification, whit% transpires that at the time of issuance of invoices the said unit was operative. On the strength of these assertions, he seeks vacation of the impugned Blacklisting Order.
5. On the other hand, the learned DR appearing on behalf of the department has fully supported the impugned order by reiterating the basis evolved therein.
6. We have anxiously heard the arguments and perused the record. The perusal of notice dated 24.10.2012 transpires that allegation regarding claiming of refund on the basis of fake invoices issued by the M/s. A.A. Enterprises has been leveled against the registered person therein, which has no legal force as the copy of online taxpayer verification furnished before us by learned counsel clearly transpires that at the time of issuance of invoices on the basis of which refund was claimed by the registered person. However, before proceeding towards conclusion, it would be justified and appropriate to have a glance on the provision on Section 21(2) of the Act, which read as under:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in cases where the [Commissioner] is satisfied that a registered person is found to have issued fake invoices, or has [otherwise] committed tax fraud, he may blacklist such person or suspend his registration in accordance with such procedure as the Board may, by notification in the official Gazettee, prescribe." ----From bare reading of the above provisions, it can easily be gathered that blacklisting of any registered person is subject to fulfillment of following two conditions:--
(i) Issuance of fake invoices
(ii) Commission of tax fraud ----it is pertinent to note that the registered person of the case in hand has been blacklisted only due to non-submission of record to the Directorate I&I F.B.R. on recommendation of which the CIR has blacklisted it by passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be endorsed, which is vacated accordingly.
7. Since, the appeal of the registered person is accepted in the above terms, therefore, miscellaneous application seeking stay is also stands disposed off accordingly.