PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S

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

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S. 3---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S. 12---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 11(2) & 36---Short paid central excise duty, allegation of---Show-Cause Notice and proceedings---Deficiency---Allegation against the appellant / taxpayer was that he had short paid Central Excise Duty (CED) for which he was called upon to show cause under Ss. 11(2) & 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Contention by the appellant was that no allegation of deliberate act or collision was confronted through show cause notice---Held: The order passed in consequence of a defective Show Cause Notice is illegal---In the present case, the impugned order was not sustainable for the reasons: (i) recovery of short paid FED relating to tax periods 2001 to 2005 had been assessed by issuing show cause notice under Ss. 11(2) & 36 of the Sales Tax Act---Since no provision of the enactments on the subject matter (i.e., excise duty) had been invoked in the show cause notice the very initiation of the proceedings were void ab initio ; (ii) In show cause notice no allegation of deliberate act or collision on the part of taxpayer was levelled, hence, the imposition of penalty and default surcharge was not sustainable; (iii) According to the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 recovery of short levy could be adjudicated by issuing show cause notice within three years whereas by invoking the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 the Assessing Officer had enlarged the limitation to five years, for which reason, the order of the authorities below relating to tax periods 2001 to 2004 was time barred ; (iv) It was also evident from the available record that the Assessing Officer had failed to make any effort to reconcile the issue with the help of amended Abstract-X filed by the appellant keeping in view the specific directions of CIR(A)---Neither the department challenged said directions nor followed the same in letter and spirit, hence it attained finality and the impugned orders were not sustainable---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue annulled the impugned orders passed by the authorities below---Appeal filed by the taxpayer was allowed accordingly.

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LEGAL ZONE, CTO, LAHORE S — 2025 PTD 1681 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD