' NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The respondent Messrs Breeze Industries, Harbanspura Road, Lahore, are a registered person and at the relevant time were proceeded against on the ground of their having wrongly made input tax adjustment amounting to Rs,83,249 in monthly returns filed for the period April, 1996. The department earlier found that a quantity of 4186 kgs. Of steel tubes (copper coated) imported by the respondent and got cleared on 5-4-1996 against which input tax adjustment was claimed had not been consumed in the goods supplied during the tax period i,e, April, 1996.
Therefore, the Assessing Officer directed payment of the aforesaid wrongly adjusted amount alongwith additional tax and surcharge.
2. The order so recorded was maintained by the first Appellate Authority.
3. On further appeal a Division Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore with reference to the provisions of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 reached the conclusion that adjustment claimed by the respondent-assessee was in line with the letter and spirit of law as contained in these provisions. Hence this further appeals by the Revenue.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal is not upon to exception. The provisions of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 are cleared in their tone and toner that an assessee/registered person is 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 which is due from him in respect of that tax period. In other words the consumption of raw-material on which input tax was paid is not directly relateable to the claim of input tax which can be claimed both in respect of the taxable supplies made during that tax period or to be made.
For the purpose of adjustment of input tax it is only the tax period and not the consumption of raw material which is relevant. The intention of law is otherwise clear from the following provisions of section 10 existing at the relevant time and even those as exist today that excess amount can both be carried forward as well as be refunded. In case the interpretation of the department in accepted then the provisions of section 10 both substituted as well as those presently existing would become redundant. That can hardly be the intention of the law. Therefore, as remarked earlier, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
5. .