MUJTABA SAUD TEXTILE, FAISALABAD vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUJTABA SAUD TEXTILE, FAISALABAD VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD S. 3(1a), First proviso, 6, 7, 22, 23, 26 & 46---S.R.O 648(I)/2013 dated 09-07-2013---Further tax, levy of---Scope---End-consumers---Scope---appellant(registered person) being a manufacturer/retailer had integrated its point of sale with the Online Computer System of FBR---alleged discrepancies were pointed out by the authorities that the appellant had failed to pay amount of further tax---Validity---appellant admittedly had supplied its textile products to the persons who were neither liable for sales tax registration nor were actually registered under the Sales Tax act, 1990 ('the act, 1990'), thus, all of them were "end-consumers"---appellant had made supplies to the general public for their own use as such, the alleged buyers were end-consumers" whereas liability to pay further tax under S. 3(1a) of the act, 1990 arose only when a taxable supply was made in the course of business / taxable activity---Meaning of "in furtherance of" was indicative of the fact that the taxable supply had been made for the enhancement or further development of the business / taxable activity---Contrarily, the appellant had supplied the alleged goods to the general public for their own use and the said goods were never used in the course of furtherance of business / taxable activity---Relevant documents (form of registration 181 and computer profile) showed that the appellant was engaged in retail sales of its textile products to end-consumers from his retail outlets---Expression "end-consumer" as used in the S.R.O 648(I)/2013 dated 09-07-2013 was to be interpreted in the light of words associated to it and not in pure isolation as per whims and wishes of the Inland Revenue (officers)---appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1819 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case MUJTABA SAUD TEXTILE, FAISALABAD VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD S. 3(1a) First proviso---Further tax, levy of---Scope---If the goods are supplied to purchasers other than registered persons i.e. end-consumers, it would, in no case, injure the Government Treasury because the tax is charged on the market price i.e. price to be paid by ultimate consumer, meaning thereby that the Government Treasury collects the ultimate tax ( which it would have collected when supplied goods were actually sold in the market ) well in advance at the time of sale of goods from the sale-outlet or factory manufacturing premises of the taxpayer/registered-person without any fear of returning it to any person in case of refunds because end-consumers cannot claim it as input under the law, therefore, charging of further tax is illegal and unlawful in the given circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 1819 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case MUJTABA SAUD TEXTILE, FAISALABAD VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD Ejusdem Generis, rule of---Scope---Said rule provides that words and phrases occurring in a provision of law are not to be taken in an isolated or detached manner, disassociated from the context, but these are to be read together and construed in the light of overall context of the provisions of law.

MUJTABA SAUD TEXTILE, FAISALABAD vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, FAISALABAD S — 2023 PTD 1819 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD