The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LEGAL ZONE, LARGE TAXPAYER OFFICE, MULTAN vs USMAN TRADE LINKER, MULTAN S

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

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LEGAL ZONE, LARGE TAXPAYER OFFICE, MULTAN VS USMAN TRADE LINKER, MULTAN S. 25(2)---access to record, documents etc.---audit, conducting of---Condition of "once a year"---"Year"---Scope---Department filed reference against the order of appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue which had declared that audit, covering period from July 2016 to December 2017 - spreading over eighteen months, was beyond the jurisdiction of the Officer of Inland Revenue and contrary to the mandate of subsection (2) of S. 25 of the Sales Tax act, 1990---Validity---In terms of subsection (2) of S. 25 of the Sales Tax act, 1990 ('the act 1990'), audit may be conducted but once in a year---However, no identification / explanation was given in the order of the appellate Tribunal that how the expression 'year' was construed or interpreted ; whether the expression 'year' was construed to mean a 'Calendar Year' or a 'Financial Year'---If it was construed as 'Calendar Year' then period of audit from 07/2016 to 12/2016 was within last six months of 'Calendar Year, i.e., 2016 ; and the period of audit from 01/2017 to 12/2017 could be treated as full one 'Calendar Year', i.e., 2017---and if expression 'year' was construed as 'Financial Year' then period from 07/2016 to 06/2017 could be treated as one 'Financial Year' and period of audit from 07/2017 to 12/2017 be treated as first six months of contempreneous 'Financial Year'---Factual determination, in said context, was missing and this conundrum could be addressed by ascertaining actual intent of the department, inferrable from the record, or upon examining past practice, conventionally adopted, relevant to the context---Even otherwise, appellate Tribunal patently erred in exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the audit in entirety, instead of determining the period of validity, in the context of time-limitations prescribed under subsection (2) of S. 25 of the act, 1990---Even otherwise, under sales tax regime tax period means a period of one month, or such period as notified accordingly---Expression 'year' was not defined in the act 1990---Evidently, matter required re-determination and it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter to the appellate Tribunal, which shall decide the appeal of the registered person / respondent afresh, in the light of answer to the question recorded---Sales Tax Reference, filed by the Department , was disposed of accordingly.

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE LEGAL ZONE, LARGE TAXPAYER OFFICE, MULTAN vs USMAN TRADE LINKER, MULTAN S — 2025 PTD 1074 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD