LASER PRAXIS DEPILEX CLINIC VS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION), COLLECTORATE OF SALES AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE, 2006 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1542 (2005)

Taxation---

----Appellate Tribunal, powers of---Scope---Tribunal in exercise of its judicial powers would act independently and not be influenced by any directions or clarifications issued by Central Board of Revenue.

M. Naveed A. Andrabi for Appellant.

A. Karim Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 24th November, 2005.

JUDGMENT

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The appellant impugns the judgment dated 31-5-2002 passed by a Bench of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appellant's appeal against its compulsory registration under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, has been dismissed. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that it was rendering medical services which did not fall within the ambit of Item No.5 of the First Schedule to the Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the basis of a clarification issued by the Central Board of Revenue vide letter C. No. l(15)STR/2000, dated 17-4-2001. From the contents of the impugned judgment it is evident that the Tribunal, instead of examining and interpreting Item No.5 of the First Schedule, considered the above referred letter to be conclusive in the matter.

2.Learned counsel for the appellant rightly argued that considering the nature of the appellant's activities, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to make a factual determination as to whether the appellant was operating a beauty clinic or sliming clinic and also to determine if the services of a medical nature, referred to in the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal, were being rendered at the clinic being run by it. It was argued that by relying on a clarificatory letter issued by the' Central Board of Revenue the Tribunal abdicated its adjudicatory function and, therefore, the impugned judgment was not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue was not in a position to controvert the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of the appellant.

3. It is by now well-settled that the Appellate Tribunal, in the exercise of its judicial powers, is to act independently and is not to be influenced by any directions or clarifications which may be issued by the Central Board of Revenue. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned appellate judgment is not legally sustainable. The same is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in line with the observations made above.

S.A.K./L-6/LCase remanded.