Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.2(25), 3(1A) & 47‑‑‑Further tax‑‑‑Further tax envisaged under S.3(1A) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not leviable in .respect of supplies made to persons who were liable to be registered with Sales Tax Department even though they were not in actual fact so registered‑‑ Provisions of S.2(25) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 having been added in the year 2002, were not applicable retrospectively to the period 1999‑2000.

Nomor Akram Raja for Appellant.

A. Karim Malik for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 2003.

JUDGMENT

The 'issue raised in this appeal has already been considered and decided in favour of the assesses and against the Revenue by a learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.21776 of 2001 re: Phalia Sugar Mills v. Collector of Sales Tax, dated 19‑2‑2002. His Lordship on consideration of the various provisions of law involved, particularly subsection (1A) of section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with the definition of the term "registered person" as given in section 2(25) of the Act concluded that further tax envisaged under the said statutory provision was not leviable in respect of supplies made to persons who were liable to be registered with the Sales Tax Department even though they were not in actual fact so registered. His Lordship also appears to have benefited from the finding recorded by a learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court in C.P. No. 1457 of 1999. Our attention has also been ‑drawn to a recent judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, Multan Bench Multan in C.I. No.54 of 2002, dated 7‑5‑2003. In that judgment Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J. speaking for the Court while interpreting the provisions of section 3(1A) of the Act observed that lower forums presupposed without there being any material on record that all the retailers to whom taxable ‑supplies were made by the wholesalers were unregistered persons. His Lordship also noted that the provisions of section 2(25) of the Act having been added in the year, 2002 were not applicable 'retrospectively to the period in question i.e. 1999‑2000 relevant before their Lordships. The operative part of the order of the learned Division Bench reads as under:‑‑

"From the above, it is evident that no efforts were made at any stage either by Adjudicating Officer or by the learned Tribunal to see whether there was any material available on record to ascertain as to whether taxable suppliers were made to registered persons. To persons liable to be registered or to unregistered persons. It was the minimum requirement that every case should have been examined individually to ascertain that the wholesaler made taxable supplies to how many retailers and out of those retailers who were registered, not registered or liable to be registered or even were covered under the proviso to section 3(1A) of the Act."

2. The facts of the casein hand being exactly identical, respectfully agreeing with the finding recorded by their Lordships in the above judgments we will accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal for the reasons discussed by their Lordships.

H.B.T./M‑794/LAppeal accepted.