Pakistan’s Supreme Court (SCP) has issued a verdict against the floor mills and has announced that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has the legal right to collect “more sales tax” and “additional sales tax” on the utility bills of unregistered floor mills.
The SC decision states that the petitions arise from the orders related to the SRO 509 (I)/2013 by the Lahore High Court, Lahore (LHC). The respondents’ floor mills challenged the SRO, not only attacked the virus but also the need for registration under the Sales Tax Act, the 1990s.
The matter was decided by the High Court and announced that no further tax and additional tax could be imposed by applicants (flour mills).
The aforementioned decision of the High Court was challenged in the ICAS, which was eventually decided in favor of the floor mills of the respondents, which were in accordance with the inadequate orders. It is worth noting that the Reliance was placed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the Division Bench of the High Court, which was on the Messrs. Al -Zarina Glass Industries vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 PTD 1600), where it was a hero by the Sindh High Court that they were taxed with tax and taxable tax. There is no registration (Act) Registration.
The Revenue Department (FBR) has challenged the Supreme Court in the current petitions, due to the defective orders of the Division Bench in the ICAS. On the other hand, respondents’ taxpayers relied on another SCP decision in the case of Arif ice factory.
The SC Bench, headed by the Chief Justice, relied on the taxpayers’ prominent and heroes to which we have reviewed the decision of the ARIF Ice Factory and noted that the matter was developed for further tax and tax deduction, under the Sales Tax Act, and Section 3 (1A) of the 1990s.
In fact, in the aforementioned order hero, this court has also in our opinion “In the case regarding Commissioner Inland Revenue V Acro Spinning and Wening Mills Limited, the decision has also been imposed in this case and the immediate matter is dealt with both non -spelling clauses, but earlier, this is not the case with the court.”
Therefore, the appeal leave has been rejected and, as a result, this request has been dismissed, the SC ordered.
In view of the recent decision of this court in Civil Appeal No. 2019/2016, etc., which is a history of 15.09.2022, we believe that the High Court has made a mistake in deciding the matter without considering the law requests. As a result, these applications are converted into appeals, allowed, and unknown orders are placed aside.