Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX VS Respondent: CYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD. and others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Muhammad Ather Saeed Title: COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX vs CYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD. and others Case No.: Sales Tax Reference Application No, 239 of 2006 Date of Judgment:2007-08-17 Reported As: 2008 PTD 318 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' By this reference application, under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, following questions have been proposed by the Collector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise for the opinion of this Court:-- "(1) Whether under facts and circumstances of the case the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that "the appellant will be entitled to claim input tax adjustment in accordance with law" without mentioning specifically the provisions of law either under section 7 or section 59? (2) Whether or not the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh given vide judgment, dated 5-4-2006 regarding fresh finding on the issue of entitlement of input tax adjustment under section 7 of the Act?" 2. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order dated 19-8-2006, so also the order of this Court, dated 5-4-2006 passed in Special Sales Tax Appeal No,534 of 2004. From the plain reading of the contents of Para.5 of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the important aspect of the case regarding the applicability or otherwise of section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for which the case was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication, was clearly attended to and answered by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent. The concluding paragraph of the order of the Tribunal, dated 19-8-2006 is not to be read independently, but said order is to be read as a whole, which clarifies the issue. 3. This being the position, both the questions are misconceived, and therefore, this appeal is dismissed.