SUNDER MEHRAN BUILDERS vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI S

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

SUNDER MEHRAN BUILDERS VS COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI S. 43---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)--Non-filing of returns by the taxpayer---Penalty, imposition of---Mens rea, presence / absence of---Effect---Burden of proof---Scope---Court to presume existence of certain facts---Scope---There is no cavil to the proposition that mens rea is the basic ingredient to impose any of the penalties prescribed under the law, while burden to prove existence of mens rea lies upon the department and to discharge such burden, the department has to bring on record that all possible measures were taken to get the law complied with by the taxpayer but he deliberately and willfully abstained himself from complying with the subject provisions of law---Record revealed that in compliance of S. 23 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 ('the Act, 2011'), department issued show-cause notice which was duly served upon appellant but neither he responded to show-cause notice nor did he appear before the Assistant Commissioner---In such circumstances, following the rule of presumption provided under Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ('the Order, 1984'), the department was justified to draw an inference that appellant's appearance before the Assistant Commissioner would have caused an unfavorable result, therefore, he abstained himself from responding to show-cause notice---Therefore, appellant's absence before the Assessing Officer, despite valid service of show-cause notice, showed his deliberate and willful default to comply with the provision of law, which was sufficient enough to establish existence of mens rea in non-filing of subject returns by the appellant---In the present case, admittedly, the appellant did not carry out any taxable service, therefore; he filed "NULL" returns since the date of his registration with the department---Non-filing of return did not cause any loss to government exchequer, therefore, gravity of non-compliance of legal provision was on the lower side---Nevertheless, on account of non-compliance of S.30 of the Act 2011 by the appellant, the machinery of law came into motion, which could not be overlooked---In such circumstances, the idea of token penalty cames into operation, which in fact was a step toward reformation of the appellant in particular and society in general---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board imposed "token penalty" upon the appellant of Rs.5,000/----Appeal stood disposed of accordingly.

SUNDER MEHRAN BUILDERS vs COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-I), SINDH REVENUE BOARD, KARACHI S — 2026 PTD 650 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-SINDH-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD