Sales Tax Instructions

Sales Tax Instructions, 2009
Limited, dated 1.12.1998 and 16.12.1999 seeking exemption of section 65 re-emerged as
pending.
4. Hearing in the case was granted on 13.10.2000 when Mr.Masood Aziz,
consultant of M/s. Mandviwalla Mauser Plastic Industries Limited submitted written
submissions dated 13 th October, 2000. The consultant did not however add anything
verbally to the written arguments. The arguments are summarized below:--
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
M/s. Mandviwalla Mauser Plastic Industries Limited misunderstood and
misinterpreted the provisions of SRO 529(I)/88, dated 26.6.1988 treating
them entitled to exemption for a period of eight years calculable from the
date of setting up of their unit on the analogy of provisions of another
matching SRO 580(I)/91, dated 27.6.1991;
Being not clear on the issue, the Collectorate of Sales Tax, Quetta at Hub
vide their letter No.1-Misc/Corr/STHub/96/3037, dated 4.2.1997, had sought
clarification from the Board for the calculation of the exemption period of 8
years under SRO 529(I)/88, dated 26.6.1988, which means the interpretation
of the exemption period under the said notification was a moot issue;
M/s. Mandviwalla Mauser Plastic Industries Limited did not charge sales tax
on their supplies from any buyer and immediately after receiving judgment
of the Collector (Appeals), they treated their products as liable to sales tax
and started paying sales tax accordingly. Besides no other unit of the same
product established in the concessionary areas in Pakistan had paid sales tax
during the period from 1.7.1996 to 14.11.1997. Hence, all the conditions of
section 65 stand met and they deserve dispensation thereunder; and
If Federal Government does not agree to grant benefit of section 65 then the
decision taken by the Federal Government in case of M/s. Yahya Textile
Mills, Multan should be replicated in their case and they may be allowed to
raise sales tax invoices at belated stage so that the sales tax paid on the
supplies in question in adjusted by their buyers as input tax because the
buyers had already paid out put tax on the total value of their finished
supplies in which products supplied by the applicants were used as input.
5. All the documents of the case, submissions made by M/s.Mandviwalla
Mauser Plastic Industries Limited in their applications under reference and written
arguments filed by their consultant have been examined. The following observations are
recorded:--
(v)
(vi)
Language and scope of SRO 529(I)/88, dated 26.6.1988 SRO 580(I)/91,dated
27.6.91 being entirely different, the argument that the later notification
created confusion for the application of the former notification is not tenable.
Expiry date of SRO 529(I)/88, dated 26.6.1988 was clearly specified in
paragraph 3 thereof by mentioning eight years calculable from 1-7-1988. No
ambiguity or confusion, whatsoever, can be attributed to the interpretation of
the said paragraph;
Collector of Sales Tax, Quetta‘s letter dated 4-2-1997 did not seek any
clarification from the Central Board of Revenue. It had rather clearly
interpreted the issue of expiry of SRO 529(I)/88, dated 26-6-1988 and had