MUHAMMAD AHMAD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).---The titled appeal preferred at the instance of the registered person is directed against the order. dated 12.05.201,6 passed by the learned CIR(A), Multan.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during scrutiny of sales tax profile it transpired that for the tax periods July, 2011 to June, 2012 the appellant had adjusted input tax amounting to Rs,34,683,751/- on the goods which were not used for taxable supply, therefore, violated sections 7, 8(1)(a) and 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. On the basis of this allegation the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why the evaded sales tax may not be recovered from him along with default surcharge and penalty. The reply furnished was considered A unsatisfactory, therefore, Order-in- Original No, 210/2015-16 dated 13.04.2016 was passed.
3. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the CIR(A) contending that no audit/contravention report was issued, therefore, issuance of show-cause notice was defective and the resultant Order-in-Original is not sustainable. However, the CIR(A) after considering the contention remanded the case to the assessing officer for de novo proceedings with the following observations:-- "I have considered the grounds of appeal and the arguments and the impugned order-in-original is hereby remanded back for de novo proceedings with the directions to pass a speaking order on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and to reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned ATIR reported as 2013 PTD 2219.
4. The learned AR contended that under subsection (3) of section 45B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the CIR(A) was not empowered to remand the case, hence, his order is not sustainable. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court S.T.R. No,26 of 2016 dated 01.02.2017 and an order of the Tribunal bearing S.T.A. No,1592/LB/2015 and S.T.A.
No,338/LB/2016 dated 12.04.2016 re: Messrs Servo Motor Oil (Pvt.) Ltd., Multan. Moreover, it was also pleaded that claim of input tax was rejected on the basis of presumptions without appreciating facts of the case. The learned DR, on the other hand, pointed out that since the CIR(A) has already remanded the case to the assessing officer for de novo proceedings the appellant has an ample opportunity to prove his stance.
5. After having heard the rival arguments and going through the impugned order we have observed that the CIR(A) has disposed off the appeal in non-speaking manner. So far as the contention that CIR(A) is not empowered to remand the case, we agree with this assertion, however, since the taxpayer could not prove his claim of input tax through any documentary evidence before the assessing officer along with the documents which were placed on record before the CIR(A). Hence, there is no other option except to remand the case so that the documents so submitted by the AR could be thoroughly examined by the assessing officer. The impugned order is therefore, annulled and the case is remanded to the assessing officer with the direction to pass fresh order after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed off in the manner indicated above.