Registration Status alone is not sufficient to determine Sales Tax Liability --- Lahore High Court, Lahore
Islamabad 28-10-2024: The Lahore High Court has set aside the decision of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and remanded the case of M/s Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd. for reassessment, focusing on the classification of buyers as either wholesalers or retailers. The judgment was issued by a bench comprising Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad and Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh.
The case arose from a reference filed by M/s Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd. under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging the Appellate Tribunal’s interpretation of Section 2(47) and Section 2(28) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which define “wholesaler” and “retailer” respectively.
The Court was tasked with answering whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that unregistered buyers should be treated as “retailers” rather than “wholesalers” under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and related Sales Tax Rules, 2006. The case involved a show-cause notice issued to the sugar mill after it failed to collect tax under Sections 236G and 236H of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced through the Finance Act of 2013.
Counsel for the applicant, M/s Fatima Sugar Mills, argued that the definition of “wholesaler” was improperly interpreted by the tax authorities, who had focused only on part of the definition to suit their stance. The applicant maintained that their buyers met the criteria for “wholesalers” based on their business activities, despite being unregistered. They further argued that non-registration should not automatically reclassify a wholesaler as a retailer.
In its decision, the Court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal had indeed misinterpreted the legal provisions. It emphasized that Section 2(47) and Section 2(28) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, define wholesalers and retailers based on their business activities and the nature of their sales, rather than merely on their registration status.
The Court also referenced the case of Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Sales Tax (2002 PTD 776), which had previously clarified the distinction between wholesale and retail business activities. The judgment underscored that the actual nature of the business whether selling in bulk to traders or to the general public determines whether a buyer is classified as a wholesaler or retailer.
The Court rejected the argument that failure to register as a wholesaler automatically converts a buyer into a retailer. It further noted that the relevant provisions of the law imposed higher tax collection rates for unregistered wholesalers, but this did not change their fundamental classification as wholesalers. The Court deemed it “unsafe” to classify unregistered buyers as retailers without examining the actual nature of their business activities.
In a significant outcome, the Court remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of the buyers’ business status, instructing the officer to ascertain whether the recipients of the sugar supplies were wholesalers or retailers based on their actual business activities. This decision came after the revenue’s counsel requested a remand, which was not opposed by the applicant.
The Court’s decision clarifies the interpretation of tax laws regarding wholesalers and retailers and reinforces the principle that registration status alone is not sufficient to determine tax liability. The case has now been sent back to the assessing officer for a fresh review, with potential implications for similar cases involving the classification of business entities for tax purposes.
Powered by Froala Editor
