Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE VS Respondent: AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS LtdHonorable Justice Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar and Mian Hamid Farooq
2003 P T D 1774
2003 P T D 1774
[Lahore High Court]
Before Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ
DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (REFUND), LAHORE
Versus
AYESHA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd.
Civil Appeal NO. 155-S of 1999, decided on 18th March, 2003.
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S. 47---Appeal to High Court on question of fact decided and. settled. by Tribunal---Maintainability---Factual controversy could neither be adjudged nor embarked upon. by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction---No question of law arising out of impugned judgment was ,involved---High Court dismissed appeal being incompetent and devoid of merits.
Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate.
ORDER
Instant: appeal filed under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the Deputy Collector of Sales The (Refund), is directed against the judgment, dated 26-7-1999, whereby the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, while disposing of the respondents appeal, directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.2,882 to the appellant, with the prayer that the order of the Tribunal may be set aside restoring the order of the Collector (Appeals).
2. After hearing the learned counsel and upon the examination or the record, we find that the learned Tribunal, after examining the documents produced . by the parties including. sales tax return cum payment challan, has decided and settled the question of fact, after finding that the "date mentioned is 19th March, 1998 and not 2nd April, 1998, as wrongly held by the department", which factual controversy can neither be adjudged nor embarked upon by this Court, in exercise or the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this Court. under the aforenoted provisions of law. In view whereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Tribunal, which is hereby maintained.
3. Additionally, we are of the view that no questions of law arising out of the impugned judgment, which is sine-qua-non for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Court, are involved in this case, hence, the present appeal is incompetent and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground.
4. In the above perspective, we find that the appeal is incompetent and devoid of merits, thus, the same is dismissed in limine on both the counts.
S.A.K./D-54/L Appeal dismissed.