Messrs ABDULLAH SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE, 2002 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2902 (2002)

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---

----Ss. 3(1), 3-A & 46---S.R.O. 207(I)/98, dated 31-3-1990 [as amended vide S.R.O. 751(I)/2000, dated 21-10-2000]---Sales tax, charge of-- S.R.O. 207(I)/98, dated 31-3-1990, scope of---Notification No. S.R.O. 751(I)/2000, dated 21-10-2000 whether retrospective in effect-- Notification No. S.R.O. 751(I)/2000 was merely an amending S.R.O., having brought about an amendment in original S.R.O. 207(I)/98---Same being beneficial in nature could be retrospective to that extent---Benefit of fixation of value under S.R.O. 207(I)/98 was only confined to sales tax as contemplated under S.3(1), Sales Tax Act, 1990 which was not available in case of further tax chargeable under S.3-A of the Act-- Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold the S.R.O. 207(I)/98 as amended vide S.R.O. 751(I)/2000 to be ultra vires.

Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent, Intelligence and Investigation 2002 PTD 632 ref.

Abid Aziz Sheikh for Appellant.

ORDER

NASEEM SIKANDAR, J.---Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states and we will agree that the issues raised in this appeal , already stand resolved by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court now reported as re: Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent, Intelligence and Investigation (2002 PTD 632).

2. On consideration of various arguments addressed with regard to the legal validity of the two S.R.Os. involved, it was finally concluded as under:---

"In view of our findings hereinbefore, we partially accept these appeals and hold that the Tribunal was not vested with any jurisdiction to hold that S.R.O. No.207(I)/98 as amended vide S.R.O. No.751(I)/2000 is ultra vires and to that extent the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The appeal by the Revenue is accordingly accepted.

We further hold that the S.R.O. No.751(I)/2000 was merely an amending S.R.O. which brought about an amendment in the original S.R.O. No.207(1)/98 it being beneficial in nature could be retrospective as well to that extent. Thirdly, vide hold that the benefit of fixation of value under S.R.O. No.207(I)/98 was only confined to the sales tax as contemplated under section 3(1) and it was not available in case of further tax which was chargeable under section 3(1A)."

3. Accordingly this appeal is also disposed of in terms of the above operative part of that judgment.

S.A.K./A-302/LAppeal disposed of.