Latest News Budget 2025-26: Finance Act - Gazette version | Case Law title | Islamabad Capital Territory (Tax on Services) Ordinance, 2001 | Consultant Support Materials
Logo

We would like to send you push notifications

You can unsubscribe at any time.

logo

CREST discrepancies to the extent of evidence are deleted by ATIR

12 June 2025

Author: Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Tax, Company, etc Laws / Quick Commentaries, Updates & Daily News and Video Clippings Services Flyer, click hereHigh Level Professionals & Subscribers views, refer to sample videos link given below. For FREE Samples, fill Form, if not filled earlier. For details, call 0331 111 8786

 

From: Asif Siddiq Kasbati <asif.s.kasbati@professional-excellence.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Subject: TLQC3142= CREST discrepancies to the extent of evidence are deleted by ATIR
 
 
590+ Taxes & Levies Quick Commentary - TLQC 3142

 

1.   Further to KQU -----, being an important matter, we would inform you about -----------order (Attachment 3142.1) in the ensuing paragraph, with emphasis in bold & Underline for quick reading.

 

2.  The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order of CIR (Appeals-I), LTU, Lahore passed vide order No.17 dated 12.11.13 wherein the sales tax demand created vide Order-in- Original No. ------------------------ passed by the learned DCIR, Enforcement & Collection Unit-09, Zone-I, LTU, Lahore was held recoverable to the extent of Rs -------------- and demand of Rs ------------- was deleted, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:

 

--------------------------


 

3.   Being aggrieved of it, instant second appeal has been filed by the appellant RP on the different grounds as per memo of appeal which have almost been already considered by during the first appeal.

 

4.   Briefly stated that, appellant is a private limited company is aggrieved of an order u/s 11 of the STA whereby the learned DCIR E&C-09 Zone-1, LTU Lahore created sales tax demand of Rs 11,871,709 for violation of sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 22, 23, 26 and 73 read with SKO 283(1)/2011 dated 01.04.3011 as amended from time to time till SRO 1125(1)/2011 dated 31.12.11. Penalty of Rs. 356,151 u/s 33(17) and default surcharge were also imposed. Analysis of data provided by Computerized Risk Evaluation of ST (CREST) system and payment by ---------------------------------------------------


 


 

Amnesty under said SRO ended on ----------------, discrepancies were confronted vide SCN dated ---------------- through CREST regarding supplies made by them on which sales tax was not deposited Relevant judgment para is reproduced as under:

 

--------------------------------------


 

Tribunal Deliberation

 

1.   Both the parties have been heard at length and all the relevant records and documents produced during the proceedings have been perused very carefully. The learned AR of the taxpayer argued that the orders passed by the DCIR and the learned CIR (Appeals-V) are bad in law and against the facts of the case, the learned DCIR has passed the order without consideration of the documentary evidences submitted during the course of proceedings and the learned CIR(A) is wrong not to hold the same.

 

2.   On the other hand the learned DR for the department prayed the uphold the order of the both authorities and submitted that the Appellant has in-admissibly claimed/adjusted input tax against the payable output tax, as pointed out by the CREST ----------------------------.

 

3.   He further contended that the upon request of the appellant RP, the learned CIR(A) referred the matter to the assessing officer who after examining all the relevant record produced during enquiry/verification accepted the stance of the appellant RP and deleted the demand of ST to the extent of Rs -------------- and established the demand of sales tax Rs ----------------- regarding which no satisfactory reply was produced by the appellant RP.

 

4.   Therefore, it appears that the assessing officer has charged the appellant RP for after proper examining the case record. This Tribunal thinks that --------------------------

 

5.   Having taken regard to the facts of the case in its entirety and after respectfully following the ratio settled in the pro paras. We have no option except to reach the conclusion that the learned CIR (Appeals) has rationalized the issue before passing / confirming the assessment order which is in itself passed after due consideration of facts and record. In this backdrop, the impugned assessment as well as appellate orders appears to be judicious and speaking and need no interference.

 

Further Details & Services 

 

Should you require any clarification or explanations in respect of the above or otherwise, or require Income Tax, Federal & Provincial Sales Tax or Withholding Tax Advisory, Statement or Return Filing or Review services, or related accounting matters like the above, please feel free to email Mr Amsal at amsal@kasbati.co with CC to info.kasbati@professional-excellence.comYour Goodself may continue to get other services from your current Tax & Legal Advisors.


 

Best regards for Here & Hereafter
Asif S Kasbati (FCA, FCMA & LLB)

Managing Partner 

Kasbati & Co (1400+ Tax, Levies, Companies, Economy, Inflation, HR, Banking, Finance, etc

    Quick Commentary Service Provider and High Level 440+ Tax & Levies Laws Consultants) 

Head of Tax & Professional Excellence Services (Symbols of High Quality Practical Tax, Levies &        Corporate Training for Beginners to High Levels' Professionals) PTCL: 92-21-34329108 Mobile: 0334 322 3161 Website: kasbati.co Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/taxexcellence/ 

Google Map link: Tax Excellence  YouTube Channel Tax Excellence 


×