2010 PTD 2663

Citation2010 PTD 2663

CourtINLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

CH. MUNIR SADIQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).--- This sales tax appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee/registered person calling in question the impugned order dated 18-10-2008 passed by the Collector of Sales Tax (Appeals), Faisalabad.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that during the scrutiny of refund claim of registered person, an amount of Rs. 152,245 was deferred due to the objections that invoice requires verification, non filer and MR number and date mismatched etc. Based on these irregularities/omissions the registered person was charged with violation of sections 2(14) 4, 7, 8(1), 10, 26 and 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with refund rules 2006. The registered person was confronted through show-cause notice as to why input tax refund amounting to Rs.152,245 may not be rejected in terms of section 11(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The reply submitted by the registered person did not find favour and order in original was passed. The registered person being aggrieved filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who upheld the treatment meted out by the Assistant Collector. The registered person feeling dissatisfied with the treatment accorded by the Collector (Appeals) has come up in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. The learned AR has argued that the First Appellate Authority heard the matter on 9-5-2008 whereas the order was made on 18-10-2008 i.e. almost after lapse of five months. Therefore, at the time of passing of the order the First Appellate Authority forgot some of the important grounds raised by the appellant. The learned AR has relied on the reported judgment cited as (PLD 1960 (AJ&K) 11 where in it has been held as under;-

"No valid judgment can be given without hearing the parties. A judgment delivered about four and a half months after hearing the arguments of the parties would be tantamount to delivering judgment without hearing the parties and therefore, such a judgment would not be a legal decision."

4. I have heard the learned AR and have also gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contentions put forth at the Bar and the judgment relied upon by AR of the taxpayer have also been considered. The contention of learned AR that impugned order has been passed after a gap of five and a half months from the date of hearing of arguments is substantiated from the date of dispatch recorded as 18-1072008 vide Number C. No.779/ST/Coll(A)/Fsd/2008/3789. The ratio settled in the judgment cited supra is attracted in the instant case. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to vacate the impugned order and remand, the case back to CIR(Appeals) for deciding the matter afresh, within a reasonable time, after hearing the parties.

Case remanded.

H.B.T./180/Tax (Trib.) Case remanded.