Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs LATIF KNITS, KARACHI VS Respondent: C.I.R.(ENF) RG-II COLL S.T. & F.E., KARACHI
Court Name: Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Judge(s): Zarina N. Zaidi, Syed Muhammad Jamil Raza Zaidi Title: Messrs LATIF KNITS, KARACHI vs C.I.R.(ENF) RG-II COLL S.T. & F.E., KARACHI Case No.:M.As. (A.G) Nos.53/KB to 60/KB of 2012 and S.T.As. Nos.50/K, 75/K, 78/K to
81/K, 100/K, 101/K of 2009 Date of Judgment:2009-08-30 Reported As: 2013 PTD (Trib.) 158 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER ' Captioned above appeals have been filed against order of the Collector (Appeals). The following grounds of appeals have been assailed by the appellant. "S.T. No,50/K-2009 (1) That the Order-in-Appeal No,18-A dated 16-1-2007 is defective, void and ab-initio rejecting an amount of Rs,38, I 43 which was even not the part of show-cause notice. It is submitted that an amount of Rs,18,959 was rejected through show-cause notice which was further raised to Rs,38,143 by the respondents through order-in-original and order-in-appeal, It is urged that the respondents cannot raise the alleged amount which has not been framed in show cause notice hence the order-in-appeal may be set aside on this ground alone. (2) That firstly, there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of the remaining amount of Rs,38,143 could be rejected. The appellate comply all the conditions of Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only a tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard company prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. (3) That the Refund Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provisions under which the refund could be rejected for purported objections "Exceed Declared output and does not exist". It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions are required under the Refund Rules stands complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside.
---
## Page 2
(4) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No, 1. It is submitted with utmost respect that order-in-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and -has not passed through any provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant do not have Sales Register of Messrs Gugi Industries, Messrs Sana Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., is still suspended/blacklisted. The Collector (Appeals) shall not appreciate that what is not required under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 cannot be enforced by implication to the appellant to submit the same. It is respectfully submitted that how the appellant could obtain Sales Register from the Supplier as it is under their custody and hence demanding the above documents which is not followed by any provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 is illegal hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (5) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Does Not Exist and Exceeds Declared output" on the ground that we do not have Sales Register of the supplier. The above purported objections have been followed by STARR programme, which is merely a computer information and not a hard copy followed by the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is submitted that the appellant has complied the necessary conditions under the provisions of section 10 ibid and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (6) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:-- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,18-A of 2007 dated 16-1-2007 may be set aside. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honourable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honourable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 75/K-2009 (1) That firstly, there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,92,466 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only a tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. (2) That the Refund Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provisions under which the refund could be rejected for purported objections "Invoice Summary not submitted, De- registered". It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions are required under the Refund Rules stands complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (3) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No,]. It is submitted with utmost respect that orderin-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 10-6- 2005 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as
---
## Page 3
required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (4) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Invoice summary not submitted, De-registered and Duplicate". The said purported objections have been followed by STARR programme, which is merely a computer information and not a hard copy followed by the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is submitted that the appellant has complied the necessary conditions under the provisions of section 10 ibid and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (5) That as earlier urged the appellants may be allowed to add, and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this Appeal. (6) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,208-A of 2007 dated 7-4-2007 may be set aside. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honourable Tribunal to allot add modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honourable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 78/K-2009 (1) That there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,41,917 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme, which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stands complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (2) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No, I . It is submitted with utmost respect that order-in-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector, (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 28-3-2005 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (3) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Exceed Declared Output, Invoice summary not submitted and Duplicate" followed by STARR programme, which is not even a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, the order-in-appeal Is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (4) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:-
---
## Page 4
(a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,235 of 2007 dated 14-4-2007 may be set aside and allow the refund claim of Rs,41,917. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honourable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honourable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 79/K-2009 (1) That there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,30,760 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stand complied by the appellant and therefore the order-inappeal is liable to be set aside. (2) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No, 1 . It is submitted with utmost respect that orderin-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 2-12- 2004 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (3) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax' Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Exceed Declared Output and Non filer", followed by STARR programme, which is not eve a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (4) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,237 of 2007 dated 14-4-2007 may be set aside and allow the refund claim of Rs,30,760. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the Honourable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 80/K-2009 (1) That firstly, there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,92,466 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy
---
## Page 5
prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stands complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (2) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondent No,1 . It is submitted with utmost respect that order-in-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 16-4-2005 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (3) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Invoice summary not submitted and Exceed Declared Output", followed by STARR programme, which is not eve a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (4) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,229 of 2007 dated 14-4-2007 may be set aside and allow the refund claim of Rs,34,805. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honourable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honourable Tribunal may deem fit. ' S.T. No, 81/K-2009 (1) That it is respectfully submitted that the purported objection Registration Suspended" of the supplier was not apprised to the appellant through show cause notice hence the proceedings against the above objection is void, ab-initio and mala fide. The refund was rejected only on the purported objection "Exceed Declared Output" and not on "Registration Suspended" of the supplier hence the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (2) That there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,24,418 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stand complied by the appellant and therefore the order-inappeal is liable to be set aside. (3) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No,l. It is submitted with utmost respect that order-in-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector (Appeals) has
---
## Page 6
rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 4-7-2003 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside,. (4) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Invoice summary not submitted and Exceed Declared Output", followed by STARR programme, which is not eve a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (5) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under::- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,234 of 2007 dated 14-4-2007 may be set aside and allow the refund claim of Rs,24,418. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honorable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honorable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 100/K-2009 (1) That there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,28,050 against refund claim No, T-120902105248 and Rs,6,699 against refund claim No, T-121002105260 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stand complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (2) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No,1 . It is submitted with utmost respect that order-in-appeal is discretely silent on the intelligible information and has not passed through judicial mind. The learned Collector (Appeals) has rejected our refund claim on the ground that the appellant failed to meet the requirements of law contained in sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Although the appellant had filed refund claim on 28-3-2005 and submitted purchase invoices and proof of payment through bank to the supplier as required under the above provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 hence order-in-appeal rejecting our refund claim on this strength is liable to be set aside. (3) That it is submitted that the order-in-appeal has not been passed keeping in view with the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990. The appellant has submitted the necessary documents i,e, Sales Tax Invoices and Return Challans as required under refund rules under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Returned Rules which prevails under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, there is no provision under which the refund could be rejected for a purported objection "Exceed declared Output", followed by STARR programme, which is not eve a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
---
## Page 7
(4) Prayers:- That the appellant beg to pray as under:- (a) That the Order-in-Appeal No,360 of 2007 dated 29-5-2007 may be set aside and allow the refund claim of Rs,28,050 against refund claim No, T-120902105248 and mutatis mutandis in appellant's other 01 (one) refund claim of Rs,6,699 against refund claim receipt No, T-121002105260 rejected through the above said order-in-appeal. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay us compensation for delaying the Refund of our case. (c) That a general ruling may be issued that for such incorrect and false reasons raised by the respondent No,2 on the basis of STARR programme, which is a conflict between computer information and a hard copy, the Refunds should not be delayed or deferred or rejected. (d) That the appellant further seek leave of the honourable Tribunal to allow, add, modify, alter and submit further grounds during the proceedings of this appeal. (e) Any other relief as this honourable Tribunal may deem fit. S.T. No, 101/K-2009 (1) That the proceedings in this case may he set aside on the ground that the adjudged amount tuned in the Show-cause Notice is Rs,43,281, which was further raised to Rs,98,726 through Order- in-Original No, 214 of 2007 dated 30-12-2006 without meeting the ends of justice hence enhancing the adjudged amount from Rs,43,281 to Rs, 98, 726 is null, void and ab-initio. ' Therefore, order-in-appeal is liable, to be set aside on this ground alone. (2) That there is no law under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 under which the refund of Rs,98,726 against refund claim No, T-120702105224 and Rs,20,496 against refund claim No, T-120403105292 could be rejected. The appellant comply all the conditions of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and therefore the rejection of refund is illegal, mala fide and only tact for delaying the refund of the appellant on the shelter of STARR programme which is computer information and not a hard copy prevailing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. It is urged with utmost respect that what has not been required under the law could not be enforced by implication to the appellant. All the documents and conditions as required under the Refund Rules stands complied by the appellant and therefore the order-in-appeal is liable to be set aside. (3) That the principle of natural justice has not been complied by the respondents No, 1. It is submitted with…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.