RECKITT AND COLMAN PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX (WEST) Ss

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

RECKITT AND COLMAN PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX (WEST) Ss. 36 & 47---Notifications SRO 598(I)/90 dated 7-6-1990 & SRO 553(I)/94 dated 9-6-1994---Sales tax, recovery of---Tax exemption---Show-cause notice---Limitation---Dispute of exemption from payment of sales tax was with regard to product namely "Dettol"---Applicant / taxpayer contended that the notice was barred by time under S.36 (2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Validity---Narration of facts in Show Cause Notice along with supporting evidence determines offence attracted in a particular case---Jurisdictional threshold required for issuing Show Cause Notice under S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, attained importance because of disparate and contrasting character of mischief envisaged in two subsections of S. 36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Unless there was deliberate design or an agreement between persons to defraud tax department and the same was clearly and perspicuously laid out in Show-Cause Notice, mere mentioning of S. 36(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 or mentioning words "deliberate act" or "collusion" in Show-Cause Notice would not vest tax department with jurisdiction to invoke S. 36(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Applicability of period of limitation was dependent on facts and circumstances of the case that under which subsection a case would fall when show cause notice was read into with the narration of facts so stated therein---Under law of limitation all were equal before law, whether a citizen or State, and if a law had prescribed period of time for recovery of money, after its lapse recovery was not enforceable through Courts---Requirement of registration under Drugs Act, 1976, had its own implication and merely for such reason it could not become entitled for exemption from sales tax solely on such ground and this was one of the requirements for claiming exemption from sales tax under SRO 598(I)/90 dated 7-6-1990 and SRO 553(I)/94 dated 9-6-1994---Primary condition required to be met was that of a medicinal preparation---This was lacking in the case of applicant / taxpayer, whereas, the product was classified under Pakistan Customs Tariff Code Heading 38.08 as a disinfectant---Issue of the product as to whether it was a disinfectant or a medicinal preparation was settled by classification ruling issued by WCO (World Customs Organization) and no exception could be drawn to such classification---Such classification was a matter of record since 1990 and was not applied retrospectively---Reference was disposed of accordingly.

RECKITT AND COLMAN PAKISTAN LIMITED vs The COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX (WEST) Ss — 2024 PTD 176 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD