DISCLAIMER: All information has been given in good faith; however, the Readers must see actual text from Officials Websites of the Dept. and Libraries.
COURTS | YEAR | VERSUS | SECTION | Topics | PARAS/CASE LAWS | Citations/Reference | REPORT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lahore High Court | 2014 | Waheed Shahzad Butt Vs. The Federation of Pakistan |
Sec. 47A | ADRC |
The principles propounded in the above judgments very much underlie the objects for which FOI Ordinance was promulgated. The application by the petitioner was not responded to by the Board contrary to the command of the FOI Ordinance, which prompted him to approach the Tax Ombudsman. The Board instead of complying with the direction of Tax Ombudsman rushed to the President to get its decision set aside even though the President had no authority to entertain the said representation under the applicable law. The Board and its Chairman did not pass any order on the petitioners application and the President did not furnish any reasons in his impugned order for claiming section 8 exclusion on the recommendations given by ADRC. The very purpose for which the FOI Ordinance was promulgated was thus defeated by the Board and the President and that too without application of mind and, it appears, for improper motives.
|
W.P. 28180 of 2014. Date of Hearing 30.11.2015. | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | M/s Lahore Electric Supply Co. Vs. FBR etc. , | Sec.11& 11A | e-filing |
12. We are afraid, the view expressed in the impugned judgment that verification of electricity bills, placed on the website of the appellant, is permissible and reliance can be placed on any other extraneous information |
I.C.A. No.79 of 2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | M/s Lahore Electric Supply Co.
Vs.
FBR etc. , |
Sec.11& 11A | Sec. 11A |
12. We are afraid, the view expressed in the impugned judgment that verification of electricity bills, placed on the website of the appellant, is permissible and reliance can be placed on any other extraneous information |
I.C.A. No.79 of 2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) Ltd., | Sec.8A, Sec.8(1)(d), Sec. 7(1), Sec. 11(2) | Blacklisting |
16. In PTR 270/2012, the only claim of the applicant department in show cause notice was that as the suppliers were blacklisted, therefore, the invoices become inadmissible for input tax adjustment under rule 12(5) of the rules. |
STR No.98/2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | Commissioner Inland Revenue
Vs.
M/s. Tariq Poly Pack (Pvt.) Ltd., |
Sec.8A, Sec.8(1)(d), Sec. 7(1), Sec. 11(2) | Invoices |
16. In PTR 270/2012, the only claim of the applicant department in show cause notice was that as the suppliers were blacklisted, therefore, the invoices become inadmissible for input tax adjustment under rule 12(5) of the rules. |
STR No.98/2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.40B, | Monitoring |
15. The basic function of the FBR is to declare a tax system and collect tax as per the Act. Section 40B of the Act of 1990 and 45(2) of the Act of 2005 gives the FBR or the Chief Commissioner the authority to post an officer to monitor production, |
I.C.A. No. 124/2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2007 | M/s. FMC United Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.10, Sec.7A, 7, 8(2), Sec.3 S.R.O.645(1)/06 | Value addition. |
Value Addition:- |
W.P. No. 660 of 2007 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2009 | Pakistan Chipboard (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.40, | Search Warrant |
In this case, even the requirements of the Cr.PC for issuance of search warrant have not been complied with. The search warrant was issued by Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura on 11.12.2007 |
W.P. No.4532 of 2009 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2010 | Punjab Beverages Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. Federation of Pakistan | Sec.3(5)(c)& Sec.7 Cont. of Pak, 1973 Art.189 | Royalty |
The above mentioned judgments of Peshawar High Court and august Supreme Court are squarely and fully applicable to the case of present petitioners as the facts of these cases are identical for the reason that Northern Bottlers, |
W.P. No. 16047 of 2010 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2010 | Punjab Beverages Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. Federation of Pakistan | Sec.3(5)(c)& Sec.7 Cont. of Pak, 1973 Art.189 | Off-Shore Companies |
The above mentioned judgments of Peshawar High Court and august Supreme Court are squarely and fully applicable to the case of present petitioners as the facts of these cases are identical for the reason that Northern Bottlers,W.P. No. 16047 of 2010 |
W.P. No. 16047 of 2010 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Gul Enterprises etc. | Sec.73, Sec. 2(33), Sec. 3(1)(a) | Loading & Unload Charges |
Loading & Unload Charges |
STR No. 01/ 2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Gul Enterprises etc. | Sec.73, Sec. 2(33), Sec. 3(1)(a) | Bank A/c |
(a) Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified to construe the provisions of section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 while holding a personal Bank Account as Business Bank Account? |
STR No. 01/ 2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Gul Enterprises etc. | Sec.73, Sec. 2(33), Sec. 3(1)(a) | Furtherance of Business |
(a) Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified to construe the provisions of section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 while holding a personal Bank Account as Business Bank Account? |
STR No. 01/ 2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Mehran Traders. | Sec. 8(A), 8(B), Sec.10, | Jurisdiction |
Comprehensive mechanism is given by legislature under the Act of 1990, both for expeditious issuance of refund and for protecting National Exchequer from any loss. |
STR No. 20/ 2011 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Mehran Traders. | Sec. 8(A), 8(B), Sec.10, | Flying Invoices |
Comprehensive mechanism is given by legislature under the Act of 1990, both for expeditious issuance of refund and for protecting National Exchequer from any loss. |
STR No. 20/ 2011 | View Report |
Quetta High Court | 2011 | Collector Customs, ST & Excise, Quetta Vs. M/s Manan Khan, Khi etc. | Ss.2(s), 156, 168, 179, 181, 194-A & 196 | Smuggling |
----Ss. 2(s), 156, 168, 179, 181, 194-A & 196---Smuggling---Confiscation of vehicle and conviction of accused-Appeal against acquittal---Special Judge (Customs) |
2011 PTD 2778 | View Report |
Balochistan High Court | 2011 | Collector Customs, ST &Excise, Quetta Vs. M/s Manan Khan, Khi etc. | Ss.2(s), 156, 168, 179, 181, 194-A & 196 | Order by the court |
----Ss. 2(s), 156, 168, 179, 181, 194-A & 196---Smuggling---Confiscation of vehicle and conviction of accused-Appeal against acquittal---Special Judge (Customs) |
2011 PTD 2778 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | M/s. Plyfo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Gujranwala Vs. Asst. Collector (Audit-I), ST & FE, Gujranwala & 2 Others. | Sec.45-B(1) | Jurisdiction |
Under provisions of S.45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, adjudication had been assigned to the Officers of the Sales Tax Department upto the rank of Additional Collector--- |
2011 PTD 2795 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2011 | M/s. Plyfo Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Gujranwala Vs. Asst. Collector (Audit-I), ST & FE, Gujranwala & 2 Others. | Sec.45-B(1) | Corum non judice |
Under provisions of S.45 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, adjudication had been assigned to the Officers of the Sales Tax Department upto the rank of Additional Collector--- |
2011 PTD 2795 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2012 | M/s. Chenone Stores Ltd. Vs. The Federal Board of Revenue, etc. | Sec.25 of STA 1990, Sec.46 of FEA, 2005. | Audit |
48. It is important to highlight that as under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, FEA also separately provides invasive powers of investigation under section 45 read with Chapter XIII of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005. |
W.P. No. 393 of 2012. | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2012 | M/s. Sethi & Sethi Sons Vs. The Federation of Pakistan | Art.199, Sec.37 | Judgments |
In case, where a PERSON, enjoying limited territorial jurisdiction, does an act or passes an order or initiates proceedings by locating himself outside his legally earmarked territorial jurisdiction, |
W.P. 6581 of 2012 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2012 | M/s. Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation through Secretary Revenue, etc. | Sec.3, Sec.42 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 | Adjudication |
Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others (1993 SCMR 1232), |
W.P. No. 27266 of 2012. | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Supreme Tube Industries Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.7, 8B, Art.23 | Adjustment |
In these cases although the Petitioners have challenged the vires of Section 8B of the Act on the ground that it deprives them of their fundamental right to property under Article 23 of the Constitution, |
W.P. No.3479/2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Treat Corporation Ltd., Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.2(22A), Sec.8, Sec.7(1) | Input tax |
The STA has clearly defined input tax under Section 2(14) of the STA and output tax under Section 2 (20) (c) of STA to mean provincial sales tax levied on services rendered or provided to the person. |
W.P. No. 28287 of 2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Lahore Electric Supply Company Ltd., Vs. FBR etc., | Sec.11-A, Sec.26 | Filing of Return |
e-filing of the returns along with required information does not take away the ability or the requirement of the Respondents to verify the information provided in the returns. |
W.P. No. 29138 of 2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Lahore Electric Supply Company Ltd., Vs. FBR etc., | Sec.11-A, Sec.26 | Recovery |
e-filing of the returns along with required information does not take away the ability or the requirement of the Respondents to verify the information provided in the returns. |
W.P. No. 29138 of 2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2014 | M/s Lahore Electric Supply Co. Vs. FBR etc. , | Sec.11& 11A | e-filing of Return |
12. We are afraid, the view expressed in the impugned judgment that verification of electricity bills, placed on the website of the appellant, |
I.C.A. No.79 of 2014 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2012 | Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. M/s. Premier Industrial Chemical Manufacturing Co. | Sec. 72B of STA, 1990. Sec.42B of FEA, 2005. | Audit |
5. In view of above arrangements arrived at between the parties, the impugned notices for selection of audit for the Tax Year 2011 are set aside. |
W.P. No.30786 of 2012 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2009 | Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Multan Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., | Sec.22, 25 & 73 | Question of Law |
Whether the Respondent No.1 was not required to provide the record regarding purchase, movement of goods, payment proof of their alleged suppliers to check the admissibility of refund as required under Section 22, |
S.T.R. No. 05 of 2009 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2009 | Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Multan Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., | Sec.22, 25 & 73 | Reference |
Whether the Respondent No.1 was not required to provide the record regarding purchase, movement of goods, payment proof of their alleged suppliers to check the admissibility of refund as required under Section 22, |
S.T.R. No. 05 of 2009 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2009 | Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Multan Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., | Sec.22, 25 & 73 | Scope of Reference |
Whether the Respondent No.1 was not required to provide the record regarding purchase, movement of goods, payment proof of their alleged suppliers to check the admissibility of refund as required under Section 22, |
S.T.R. No. 05 of 2009 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU Unit, Zone-II, Lhr
Vs.
M/s. Nestle Pakistan Ltd., |
Sec.47(1) | Authorization |
7. Section 47(1) also shows that the authorization has to be valid at the time when the application/reference is preferred before the High Court. Therefore, the cutoff date is the date of the filing of the reference. In this case, admittedly, on the date of filing of the instant reference i.e., |
S.T.R. No. 14 of 2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU Unit, Zone-II, Lhr
Vs.
M/s. Nestle Pakistan Ltd., |
Sec.47(1) | Reference |
7. Section 47(1) also shows that the authorization has to be valid at the time when the application/reference is preferred before the High Court. Therefore, the cutoff date is the date of the filing of the reference. In this case, admittedly, on the date of filing of the instant reference i.e., |
S.T.R. No. 14 of 2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2009 | Caretex Vs. The Collector Sales Tax & Federal Excise, etc., | Sec.36, Sec.73 | Show Cause Notice |
Whether the show cause notice issued was barred by time in terms of subsection 2 of section 36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 being issued after the expiry of 3 years and 5 months? |
S.T.R. No. 01 of 2009 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | M/s. Zia Brothers Vs. Federation of Pakistan | Sec.2(41), Sec.13 & Sec.14 | Registration |
The question that requires determination is whether a person, who is not under a legal obligation under the Act to obtain registration number can be burdened with further tax for not obtaining the registration number? Admittedly the petitioners, who are manufacturers and sellers of flour (product of milling industry), stand exempt from payment of sales tax under section 13 read with item No.19 of the 6th Schedule of the Act. |
W.P. 27097/2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Pakistan Fruit Juices Co. Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. | Sec.3(1A), 3(5), 3(6), 3(2)(a), Sec.3(1B) | Capacity Tax |
Every charging section maintains an insular independent status. Reference is also made to sub-sections 3(1A), 3(5) and 3(6) of STA, which clearly mark with precision the sub-sections they replace or substitute. Hence legislation must specifically provide for substitution. |
Case No. 17893/2013 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2015 | Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Versus FOP etc. | Sec.38, Sec.40B. 2014 PTD 1807(supra) | Investigation & Inquiry |
The purpose of both the Sections is to enable the Respondents to carry out the investigation and inquiry and obtain necessary information. The Act contemplates an inquiry/investigation process in which ˜monitoring and ˜free access is necessary. To say that while invoking Section 40B of the Act, the Respondents cannot use their power under Section 38 of the Act would therefore go against the
mandate of the law. |
W.P. No. 6363 of 2015 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2015 | Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Versus FOP etc. | Sec.38, Sec.40B. 2014 PTD 1807(supra) | Monitoring |
The purpose of both the Sections is to enable the Respondents to carry out the investigation and inquiry and obtain necessary information. The Act contemplates an inquiry/investigation process in which ˜monitoring and ˜free access is necessary. To say that while invoking Section 40B of the Act, the Respondents cannot use their power under Section 38 of the Act would therefore go against the
mandate of the law. |
W.P. No. 6363 of 2015 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 1986 | Mr. M. Ali Sayed, (Adv.) Vs. Ms. Masooda Siraj, (Adv.) | Sec.2 and 3 | Goods |
15. The main contention of the department is that the petitioner has produced or manufactured the storage tanks which in their opinion are liable to be taxed under section 3 of the said Act and reliance in this regard is placed on the PCT Heading 73.22. We have examined that it is not the case of the department that the petitioner after producing or manufacturing the said storage tanks have ever sold these items. Sales Tax is a tax levied, as the name indicates, on the sale of certain goods which falls under the ambit of the said law barring the exemptions provided under the statute wherein certain items and goods have specifically been exempted from the said levy. |
C.P. No.D-664 of 1986 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 1986 | Mr. M. Ali Sayed, (Adv.) Vs. Ms. Masooda Siraj, (Adv.) | Sec.2 and 3 | Supply |
15. The main contention of the department is that the petitioner has produced or manufactured the storage tanks which in their opinion are liable to be taxed under section 3 of the said Act and reliance in this regard is placed on the PCT Heading 73.22. We have examined that it is not the case of the department that the petitioner after producing or manufacturing the said storage tanks have ever sold these items. Sales Tax is a tax levied, as the name indicates, on the sale of certain goods which falls under the ambit of the said law barring the exemptions provided under the statute wherein certain items and goods have specifically been exempted from the said levy. |
C.P. No.D-664 of 1986 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2016 | M/s. SMS Courier (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. The Collector (Appeals) and another. | Sec.25, Sec.36 | Audit |
No illegality appears to have been committed which has prejudiced the applicant. During the arguments also, the learned counsel for the applicant did not try to rationalize the difference in tax assessment made by the department on the basis of documents belonging to the applicant and consequent show cause notice on merits of the facts |
Spl. STRA No.105 of 2006. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2006 | M/s. SMS Courier (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. The Collector (Appeals) and another. | Sec.25, Sec.36 & 34 | Tax Fraud |
No illegality appears to have been committed which has prejudiced the applicant. During the arguments also, the learned counsel for the applicant did not try to rationalize the difference in tax assessment made by the department on the basis of documents belonging to the applicant and consequent show cause notice on merits of the facts |
Spl. STRA No.105 of 2006. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2003 | The AC, Collectorate of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Silver Corporation. | Sec.34, 36 & 45(A) | Goods Exported |
Whether the authority who issued the show cause notice was competent to issue the same under section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990? |
Spl.S.T.R.A No.82 of 2003 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2003 | The AC, Collectorate of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Silver Corporation. | Sec.34, 36 & 45(A) | Invoices |
Whether the authority who issued the show cause notice was competent to issue the same under section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990? |
Spl.S.T.R.A No.82 of 2003 | View Report |
Lahore High Court | 2013 | Pakistan Readymade Garments Vs. Govt. of Pakista, etc. | Sec.4(c), 3(2)(b), 3(6), 8(1)(b) and Sec.71 | Zero Rating |
11. The impugned SRO as well as all the notification from 2011 onward are not issued only under Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 instead they are issued under Section 4(c), 3(2)(b), 3(6), 8 (1)(b) and Section 71 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. |
W.P. No.9839 of 2013. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Commissioner-IR, Zone-II, LTU Vs. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. | Sec.2(46) | Value of Supply |
5. From perusal of the record and orders of forums below as well as from order of the Appellate Tribunal, it appears that since the very levy and charging of assessment fee and vend fee has been declared to be ultra vires by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, no occasion for addition of any such fee for the purpose of value addition in terms of section 2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, arises. |
Ref. Application No.48/2012 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Commissioner-IR, Zone-II, LTU Vs. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. | Sec.47 | Reference |
6. We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as it depicts correct factual and legal position. Admittedly, the subject controversy in the instant case was finally decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.06.2008 while deciding the main appeal on merits. |
Spl. S.T.R. No.562 of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Commissioner-IR, Zone-II, LTU Vs. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. | Sec.47 | Rectification Application |
6. We do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as it depicts correct factual and legal position. Admittedly, the subject controversy in the instant case was finally decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 16.06.2008 while deciding the main appeal on merits. |
Spl. S.T.R. No.562 of 2011. | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Commissioner-IR, Zone-II, LTU Vs. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. | Sec.2(46) | Fee of cost Sample |
"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case supply of products/samples free of cost to medical practitioners/consumers is liable to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 or not?" |
Spl. S.T.R. No.279/2007 | View Report |
Sindh High Court | 2011 | Commissioner-IR, Zone-II, LTU Vs. M/s. General Tyre and Rubber Co. | Sec.2(46) | Value of Supply |
"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case supply of products/samples free of cost to medical practitioners/consumers is liable to sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 or not?" |
Spl. S.T.R. No.279/2007 | View Report |
DISCLAIMER: All information has been given in good faith; however, the Readers must see actual text from Officials Websites of the Dept. and Libraries.