This appeal is preferred under section 66 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Servi ces Act, 2012 by Messrs Prix Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Ltd. against the learned Commissioner (Appeals) PRA Lahore's order dated 11.02.2019 whereby the order-in-original of Additional Commissioner Enforcement-III PRA Lahore dated 07-08-2018 at Rs.2,547,908/- was modified by reducing the assessed amount to Rs.855,877/ -, while deleting penalty under section 48, however confirming default surcharge under section 49 of the PSTS Act, 2012.
2. Brief facts leading to the instant case are that appellant being registered with Punjab Revenue Authority as withholding agents however failed to discharge its legal obligation of tax deduction on receiving taxable services falling under various serial numbers of Second Schedule to Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012. In consequence whereof a show-cause notice dated 24.04.2018 was issued to appellant by way of which Messrs Prix Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Ltd. was charged with violation of sections 14 and 19 of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 with the intent to avoid tax. The Appellant was caused upon to show-cause as to why amount of sales tax to tune of Rs.2,547,908/-, on the total value of taxable services at Rs.16,472,542/-, received during financial years 2016 and 2017 under various taxable heads of second schedule of the Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 may not be assessed under section 52 along with penalty under section 48 and default surcharge under section 49 of the Act.
3. Vide said show-cause notice hearing was fixed for 07.05.2018 which however was extended to 14.05.2018, however no compliance was made. Then the case was fixed for 29-06-2018, however feeling dissatisfied with the reply/supporting documents filed by the appellant, the assessing officer afforded another opportunity to the appellants for 07-08-2018, however instead of furnishing the requisite documents, the appellant referred to the earlier reply dated 29-06-2018. The Additi onal Commissioner Enforcement-III, therefore proceeded with passing an order on the basis of available data vide order dated 07.12.2018, while determining an amount of sales tax to the tune of Rs.2,547,908/- under section 52 of the Act, 2012 along with default surcharge under section 49 and penalty under section 48 of the Act ibid. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferre d appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) PRA Lahore who vide order dated 11.02.2019 modified the order-in-original of Additional Commissioner Enforcement-I PRA Lahore by reducing the assessed amount to Rs.855,877/-, along with default surcharge under section 49 of the Act 2012. Vide said order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted tax liability at Rs.1,692,031/-,under the counts of Auditor Remuneration/legal charges, Repairs and Maintenance, Courier Services and Sales Promotion expenses, however the tax demand at Rs.855,877/-, was confirmed under the heads Carriage out Charges and Advertisement and Printing. The Appellant still feeling aggrieved has assailed this order before this tribunal.
4. The learned counsel for Appellant through their Grounds of Appeal has argued that impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law to the extent of upholding Advertising and printing expenses as services and imposition of default surcharge under section 49 of the act. They further argued that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law in holding that the cost of promotional material and rent of stall in a trade expo amounts to taxable advertisement services despite the fact that these are payments for goods and rent and not services obtained from another person. They further averred that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) PRA erred in upholding withholding liability on payments to transporters without examining the crucial aspect of the matter that withholding agent cannot be saddled with liability without first confronting the service provider .
5. On the other hand this appeal has been controverted by the learned DR for the Respondents on grounds that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is a well reasoned order as maximum relief wherever legally admissible has already been afforded to the appellant through deletion of major portion of tax amount and the amounts confirmed has been upheld as appellant failed to prove its stance with any plausible justification or supporting documents required under the law. He further asserted that even before this forum the Appellant has failed to come up with any provision of law or document in support of its contention and has merely reiterated the grounds of appeals.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. The case record in juxtaposition to the relevant provisions of law has thoroughly been examined. Admittedly the Additional Commissioner Enforcement-III determined an amount of sales tax to the tune of Rs.2,547,908/- against various taxable services received by the appellant as it failed to come up with any plausible evidence/justification for non-deduction vis a viz these services during those proceedings. Perusal of the body of order-in-original reveals that the appellant filed only one reply vide letter dated 29-06-2018 and despite opportunities relied only on the same reply which left no option with the Additional Commissioner-III to decide otherwise. However , the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while adjudicating the matter in first appeal through a well-reasoned order , examined each head in detail and afforded maximum relief as out of total demand of Rs.2,547,908/-, an amount of Rs.855,877/-, under the heads Carriage out Charges and Advertisement and Printing was confirmed after detailed discussion in line with the relevant provisions of law and available documents. The appellant even during the course of proceedings before this forum could not come up with any justification/supporting document and merely reiterated its same stance as stated mainly in the body of Grounds of Appeals. It is worthwhile to mention that not an iota of evidence was either appended with this appeal or even adduced during arguments leaving no doubt with this forum to conclude that the AR of the appellant has nothing to defend its case in relation to these additions.
11. In view of the foregoing we are not inclined to take a detour to the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and as a corollary , the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
The Registrar of the Tribunal is directed to communicate this judgment to all concerned immediately . File of appeal be consigned to record room.