The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LTO, MULTAN vs AN TEXTILE MILLS LTD

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, LTO, MULTAN VS AN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. SHEIKHUPURA ROAD, FAISALABAD Ss. 2(25), proviso to, Ss.3(1a) 8(1)(m) & 73(4)---Persons liable to be registered---Scope and extent---Input tax, deduction of---Further tax---Scope---Benefit under S. 73(4) of the Sales Tax act, 1990---Scope---appellate Tribunal recorded findings to the effect that supplier / respondent, had paid further tax against the supplies made to persons not registered, who had not obtained registration number in terms of S.3(1a) of the Sales Tax act, 1990---Validity---If recipients of supplies, who had not obtained registration number, were treated as not registered persons for the purposes of further tax, how could they be treated as deemed registered person for the purposes of subsection (4) of S. 73 of the Sales Tax act , 1990---It was axiomatic that on one hand respondent had paid further tax qua the supplies made to person, without registration number, and on the other, benefit was claimed simultaneously qua the supplies to person not registered---Subsection (4) of S. 73 of the Sales Tax act, 1990 contemplates and extends specific / exclusive benefit to the registered person, upon allowing claim of input tax qua taxable supplies when made within the limits prescribed, which benefit, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be doled out to non-registered recipient by banking upon S. 2(25) of the Sales Tax act, 1990, which section cannot be construed contrary to the subject and context of subsection (4) of section 73 of the act, 1990---Thus, in case of inconsistency between S. 2(25) of the Sales Tax act, 1990 and subsection (4) of S. 73 of the act, 1990, latter provision of the law would prevail---Subsection (4) of S. 73 of the Sales Tax act, 1990 cannot be rendered repugnant by extending preference to the definition / interpretation clause---Even otherwise, the proviso to S.2(25) of the Sales Tax act, 1990 envisaged benefit for potentially registerable person and such benefit cannot be extended or claimed by the registered person---Subsection (4) of S. 73 of the Sales Tax act, 1990 is a special provision, dealing with specific situation and providing special concession / benefit, and effect thereof cannot be invalidated in the context of general provisions---Reference to S.8(1)(m) of the Sales Tax act, 1990 by appellate Tribunal was misplaced, which provision specifically dealt with input goods, attributable to the supplies---Thus, appellate Tribunal misconstrued scope, extent and distinctiveness of subsection (4) of S. 73 of the Sales Tax act , 1990, which erred in law while extending unwarranted preference to S. 2(25) of the Sales Tax act , 1990, which construction and treatment constituted an illegality---Thus, proposed questions were answered in negative---Reference application was decided in favour of applicant / department.

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, LTO, MULTAN vs AN TEXTILE MILLS LTD — 2025 PTD 1109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD