COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LTO, MULTAN vs USMAN TRADER LINKERS, MULTAN Ss

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

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LTO, MULTAN VS USMAN TRADER LINKERS, MULTAN Ss.2(17) & 47---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Rr.7(4) & 29(1)(b)---Reference---Commercial Exporter---Expeditious Refund System---Particulars of registration, change of---Commissioner Inland Revenue---Suo motu powers---Respondent entity was registered as "Manufacturer-cum-exporter" for the purposes of tax return but authorities modified its registration as "Commercial Exporter"--- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by authorities with regard to modification of registration of respondent entity---Validity---In order to announce a registered person as "Commercial Exporter", one of the basic conditions was that due to lack of manufacturing facility, it was exporting goods after receiving the same from other registered persons, irrespective of the fact that the goods were in the same state or processed or manufactured---Respondent entity was itself manufacturing the goods, therefore, could not have been declared as "Commercial Exporter" instead of "Manufacturer"---Respondent had his own manufacturing facility and was Manufacturer-cum-Exporter duly entitled to claim refund under Sales Tax Act, 1990, which was to be processed under the Expeditious Refund System (ERS), provided in R.29(1)(b) of Sales Tax Rules, 2006---Commissioner, after scrutiny of available information, necessary inquiry and providing opportunity of hearing to registered person, could pass an order regarding modification(s) in particulars of registration---No power was bestowed upon Commissioner Inland Revenue under R.7 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006, to suo motu make any change in particulars of registration---High Court declined to interfere in order passed in favour of respondent entity by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue---Reference was dismissed, in circumstances. S.2(17) & proviso---Word "or"---Scope---Word "or" appearing in proviso to S.2(17) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is used in disjunctive sense, which means that words owns and has his own manufacturing facility have been used to convey different meanings. Own---Meaning. Fiscal statutes---Words "or" and "and"---Scope---In legislative instruments/provisions, word "or" is employed in disjunctive sense (means it separates things) and word "and" in conjunctive sense (means it combines things)---In certain cases, words "and" and "or" may be interchangeable---Such course of action is only permissible in order to give effect to clear and obvious intention of legislature or to avoid absurdity, unreasonableness or redundancy--- While construing a statute / legal provision, no part of same or word used therein is superfluous---Every word has to be taken into account and meaning is to be given to the same---Courts always presume that every word and expression used by legislature has a purpose and intent---No provision of an enactment can be treated as redundant or surplus and has to be given its meaning and effect---While interpreting taxing statutes, if there is any doubt or ambiguity in the language used in statute which may render same capable of several interpretations, then interpretation favourable to assessee is to be adopted.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LTO, MULTAN vs USMAN TRADER LINKERS, MULTAN Ss — 2023 PTD 679 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD