INSAF TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZON

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

INSAF TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, FAISALABAD R. 34(1)(d)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.10---SRO No.555(I)/2006 dated 05-06-2006---Refund of sales/input tax---Scope---Appellant / registered person (company engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles and sales etc.) assailed confirmation of refund rejecting order passed by the assessing authority---Processing officer rejected the claim of the registered person while observing violation of R. 34(1)(d) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006 ('the Rules, 2006')---Validity---Rules were "subject to the Act" and therefore could not offend or contradict the substantive provision of the Act---Rules being subordinate or delegated legislation, are framed under the authority of the parent statute, and are therefore subservient to the primary legislation---Rules cannot contradict or add to the clear provision of the parent statute---Rules cannot override the specific provisions of the parent statute---Rules are to carry out the purpose of the Ordinance / Act and cannot offend, oppose or be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent statute---Any rule, to the extent of any inconsistency with the parent statute is, therefore, ultra vires of the parent statute---Thus, there was no lawful justification for processing officer to reject the appellant's refund claim under the preview of R.34(1)(d) of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006---As S. 10(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, clearly indicates that if input tax exceeds the output tax on account of zero rated local supplies or exports made during that tax period, the excess amount of input tax shall be refunded---Further, as per provision of S. 10(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the show-cause notice and impugned order beyond notified pecuniary jurisdiction and beyond the limit of sixty days had been declared null and void ,therefore, nothing remained tangible on account of impugned show cause notice and order---Each refund claim of the respective claimant/appellant was required to be processed under the relevant procedure as per provisions of S.10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---A mechanism for filing of refund claim with the department under the provision of Sales Tax Act, 1990, had been devised whereunder every claim was processed and scrutinized in the light of said procedure/system---Appellate Tribunal set-aside the impugned orders passed by authorities below declaring the same illegal and void ab initio on facts as well as on legal issues---Appeal, filed by the registered person , was accepted.

INSAF TEXTILE PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CORPORATE ZONE, RTO, FAISALABAD R — 2025 PTD 418 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD