Messrs SHAJAR PAK (PVT.) LIMITED, Lahore VS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISES, LAHORE, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 647 (2003)

Sales Tax Act (III of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.33 & 4.7‑‑‑Imposition of penalties‑‑‑Appeal to High Court‑‑ Allegation against appellant was that he cleared material produced by him during different periods in year 1996‑97 without payment of sales tax‑‑‑Appellant company having failed to demonstrate by documentary evidence that allegations made by Department were incorrect, it was found liable to pay sales tax with additional tax and penalty under S.33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990‑‑‑No question of law had arisen out of order of the Tribunal which was sine qua non to approach the High Court in appeal‑‑‑Appellant had mainly stressed that it was not allowed ample opportunity to rebut allegations contained in show‑cause notice issued to it‑‑‑Such assertion was not supported by the record‑‑‑Even in grounds of appeal before Tribunal, appellant never agitated issue of lack of proper opportunity‑‑‑Original order specifically mentioned that appellant had failed to participate in original proceedings despite opportunities and in fact he absented after having once participated in the proceedings‑‑ Order of Tribunal not giving rise to any question of law, appeal against said order was dismissed.

Shafaqat Mehmood Chohan for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 5th March, 2003.

ORDER

NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑The appellant in this further appeal under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is a registered person. On the basis of a report of the Audit Team he was‑ served a show‑cause notice on 6‑6‑1998 alleging clearance of ready made garments valuing Rs.873,88 during the different period in the year, 1996‑97 without payment of sales tax. In the adjudication proceedings that followed the appellant failed to demonstrate by documentary evidence that the allegations made by the department were incorrect. Accordingly through an Order‑in‑Original, dated 5‑4‑2002 it was found liable to pay sales tax at Rs.87,388 with additional tax and penalty of Rs.10,000 under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.

2. The appeal filed against the Order‑in‑Original was rejected by a Division Bench of the learned Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench on .17‑12‑2002. Learned Members of the Tribunal observed‑ that during the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority the appellant never produced any evidence to controvert the allegations. Further that during the hearing before the Tribunal, learned counsel conceded receipt of sale proceeds during 1996‑97 though it was contended that supplies were made prior to July, 1996. The only piece of evidence produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate that fact was found to be of insufficient evidentiary value for the reason of the same being a general certificate on the letter head of partner of "Laila Garments" that enclosed list of gate passes issued during May and June, 1996 were genuine. The learned Members of the Tribunal accordingly refused to accept the same in evidence with a further observation that the documents so produced lacked connection with the documents of supplies referred to by the audit team. It was also observed that no document was produced to support supplies made to Dr. Ayuz‑ud‑Din of Export Faisalabad and Fashion Galary, Lahore etc. Lastly that evidence having not been produced before the Adjudicating Authority it could not be permitted to‑be introduced in evidence before them. The impugned order of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal has brought the appellant before us.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal which is sine qua non to approach this Court in appeal under provisions of section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Before us learned counsel for the appellant has mainly stressed that the appellant was not allowed ample opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show‑cause notice. That assertion however, is not supported from the record. Even in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant never agitated the issue of lack of proper opportunity.

4. On the other hand, in the Order‑in‑Original it is specifically mentioned that the appellant had failed to participate in original proceedings despite opportunities and in fact he absented after having once participated in the proceedings.

5. That being so we find no fault with the observations of the learned Tribunal made with regard to inadmissibility as well as insufficiency of the evidence sought to be produced before them. The order of the Tribunal, as observed earlier, does not give rise to any question of law.

6. Dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./S‑274/LAppeal dismissed.