This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a tax dispute regarding whether a Steel-melter/Re-rolling Mill chargeable to sales tax under the special procedure provided in Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 is also liable to the levy of further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for supplies made to unregistered persons. The three forums below held that payment of sales tax under Rule 58H does not exempt a registered person from the levy of further tax under Section 3(1A). The Supreme Court affirmed the lower forums' rulings, holding that special procedure assessment does not relieve a taxpayer of further tax liabilities. Additionally, the Court declined to entertain new points of law not raised in the Reference application before the High Court or noted in the impugned judgment. The key principles affirmed are that Rule 58H special procedure does not override Section 3(1A) further tax, and under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court only considers legal questions previously raised before the forum below. Leave to appeal was refused.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. The question in issue agitated before the learned three fora below is whether the Steel- melter/Re-rolling Mills which is chargeable to sales tax under the special procedure provided in Rule 58H of the Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 ("the Rules ") is liable to the levy of further tax under section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("the Act"). The further tax is charged on supplies made by a registered person to unregistered persons. The learned three fora below have held that this charge applies squarely to all such supplies made by registered persons. Consequently , the payment of sales tax under a specific assessing procedure envisaged in Rule 58H of the Rules does not exempt or save the petitioner from levy of further tax under section 3(1A) of the Act.
2. The learned counsel in the first insta nce sought help from SRO No. 585(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 to claim exemption of the petitioner from further tax. However , it transpired that the facts of this case pertain to the period prior to issuance of the said notification. Thereafter , he urged points which were not raised in the Reference application before the High Court nor are noted in the impugned judgment. Under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, we deal with questions of law that have been urged before the forum below . The arguments addressed are at best untested second thoughts.
3. In this view of the matter , we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.