KARACHI: M/s Abdullah & Company, M/s Faraz Brother and other 66 importers approached the Sindh High Court (SHC) against issuing sales tax general orders no 102, 103 for printing retail price after clearance of goods and fixation taxes.
On 24 February 2020, counsel for importers stated in their constitutional petition that petitioners are all sole proprietors trading under various name and style, and are commonly engaged in the lawful import of various parts for motorcycles, cars, buses and vehicles, while some are exclusively engaged in the import of spare parts of motorcycles, as relevant to the context of the present petition, it is submitted that auto parts are listed at serial no 49 in the 3rd schedule of the sales tax act, 1990 (the act, 1990).
He further submitted that auto parts are imported by the petitioners and subsequently supplied, without making any value addition, to the wholesalers/ distributors across the country for onward sale and supply for ultimate used and consumption.
It is submitted that the petitioners have contributed huge sums to the public exchequer in regular discharge of their obligations under different revenue laws of the country. The petitioners have a common cause of action and have filed instant petition jointly through a duly authorized attorney.
They stated that petitioners are aggrieved and seriously predicted by the arbitrary and illegal actions taken by the respondents, the petitioners may briefly submit the FBR’s officials issued sales tax general orders no 102, 103 that “the retail price, if no printed at import stage, can be printed at the port of import in the prescribed manner, if that is also not possible, the importer shall undertake to print the retail price after clearance of goods and shall pay sales tax on retail price which shall not be less than 130% of the customs value increased by assessed customs duties, excise duty and other applicable taxes and charges excluding sales tax.
Counsel further argued that the impugned STGO are patently arbitrary and illegal, it is submitted that through the impugned STGO, the FBR officials purportedly amended the definition of retail price as provided in section 2(27) of the act, section 2(27) of the act, 1990.
Citing chairman FBR, collector of Customs Appraisement East, West and Port Muhammad Bin Qasim as respondents, petitioners pleaded the court to declare that action of the respondents is illegal, mala fide and set aside impugned STGO.
