COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE VS MESSRS HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED
2002 P T D 508
[Lahore High Court]
Before Naseem Sikandar and Mansoor Ahmad, JJ
COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE
versus
Messrs HOECHST RAVI CHEMICALS LIMITED
Customs Appeal No. 104 of 1998, heard on 02/10/2001.
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S. 10(1)---Refund---Adjustment---Refund was refused to be, adjusted being not pertaining to the tax period---Validity---Excess amount of in put tax was not only confined to a tax period of a particular month but it could be carried forward for the next six consecutive months.
A. Karim Malik for Appellant.
Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2001.
JUDGMENT
MANSOOR AHMAD, J.---Revenue is aggrieved from the judgment, dated 1-6-1998 passed in Appeal No.631 of 1997 by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore.
2. Messrs Hoechst Ravi Chemicals Limited, Faisalabad , Road, Sheikhupura submitted sales tax return for the month of October, 1996. A refund of Rs.10,67,592 was claimed by the respondent-assessee. The refund was declared by the Assistant Collector (Refund) Sheikhupura. Aggrieved from that order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) observing that section 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 pertains to sales tax figure of the tax period alone which was only one month and finding no substance in the claim of the assessee dismissed the appeal.
3. Assesseee filed a second appeal before the Customs, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore. The Tribunal vide its judgment impugned accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for fresh decision of the entire claim of refund of the appellant as shown in the return without applying any limitation or
4. The Collector of Sales Tax, Lahore assailed the order of the Tribunal through the present appeal on various grounds inter alia contending that the provision of section 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not properly applied by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the adjustment of tax was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal inasmuch as that the provisions of section 7 vis-A-vis section .10 of the Act was misconstrued.
5. We find no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel. Firstly because the Tribunal has merely remanded the case for deciding afresh the appeal of the assessee. Secondly the Tribunal has noted in its order that the provisions of section 10 were substituted by the Finance Act, 1996 which was made applicable with effect from 1-7-1996. Substituted section 10 of the Act provided carrying forward the excess amount of input tax to the next six consecutive of input tax was not only confined to a tax period of a particular month but it could be carried A forward for the next six months. This being the clear legal position no substantial and important question of law emerges out in the present appeal.
Resultantly we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C-137/L Appeal dismissed.