06.03.2018 Views

Sales Tax Instructions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Sales</strong> <strong>Tax</strong> <strong>Instructions</strong>, 2009<br />

[Issued by CBR., Islamabad, under the signature of Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed Tunio, Secretary<br />

(ST-L&P), addressed to Director General Procurement (Army), Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi<br />

& copy to all Collectors of <strong>Sales</strong> <strong>Tax</strong> Secretary (ST Education).]<br />

********<br />

C.No.3(1)STP/98 DATED 9 TH JANUARY, 2001<br />

SUBJECT:-<br />

PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF<br />

SECTION 9 OF THE SALES TAX ACT, 1990.<br />

I am directed to refer to your letters No.PO/CE/28/697, dated 31 st October, 2000<br />

and No.PO/CE/28/01765, DATED 16 th November, 2000 on the subject cited above and<br />

to inform that SRO 696 (I)/96 dated 22 nd August, 1996 clearly mentions that if the goods<br />

supplied are returned by the buyer within 90 days of the supply on the ground that the<br />

goods were damaged or of sub-standard quality, the buyer shall issue Debit Note and<br />

supplier shall issue Credit Note and shall make such adjustments in the record as are<br />

prescribed. There is no provision in the said rules for issuance of Debit and Credit Note<br />

in case of change in value of supplies due to quality claims, weight, disputes etc. This has<br />

already been clarified in para-2 in Board‘s letter of even number dated 8 th January, 1999<br />

(copy enclosed). However, in case of ginned cotton the Special Procedure for Ginning<br />

Industry Rules, 1996 already allows a period of six (06) days for settlement of terms, if<br />

any, about quantity and value. Board is of the view that this period should suffice to settle<br />

the disputes of price or quantity between buyer and seller.<br />

2. It is, therefore, reiterated that the scope of SRO 696(I)/96 dated 22 nd<br />

August, 1996 cannot be extended beyond the parameters envisaged therein.<br />

[Issued by the CBR, Islamabad under the signature of Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed Tunio,<br />

Secretary (ST-L&P), addressed to M/s All Pakistan Textile Mills Association, Karachi. Copy<br />

endorsed to all the Collectors of <strong>Sales</strong> <strong>Tax</strong> and Secretary (ST.Education).]<br />

********<br />

C. NO.3/(54) STP/99 DATED 11 TH JANUARY, 2001<br />

SUBJECT:-<br />

ORDER DATED 27.10.2000 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,<br />

KARACHI BENCH, KARACHI IN THE CASE OF M/S.<br />

NOVARTIS (PAKISTAN) LTD.<br />

I am directed to refer to enclose a copy of order dated 27.10.2000 of the<br />

Appellate Tribunal Karachi Bench, Karachi in the case M/s Novartis (Pakistan) Ltd., (S.T<br />

Appeal No. K-193/2000) which has been applied to five other cases, and to say that the<br />

Appellate Tribunal has based its decision on an uncirculated U.O. Note of the Ministry of<br />

Law and on an order of the Indian Supreme Court. It is, therefore, requested that an<br />

appeal against the above order may be filed at the earliest on, inter alia, the following<br />

points:-<br />

The Board having strong reservations against Law Division‘s ruling has already<br />

sent reference for review of the decision on a number of grounds (copy

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!