2026 P T D 329
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Iqbal Ahmed Kasi and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, QUETTA
Versus
DEENAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and another
Sales Tax Reference Appeal No.06 of 2025, decided on 10th December, 2025.
(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S. 11(2)---Assessment /recovery of tax erroneously refunded etc.---Fake / flying invoices
issued by the blacklisted/suspended units, allegation of---Transaction made through proper bank
channel---Scope and effect---All the transactions made with the supplier by the
respondent/registered Person, during the alleged period (from July 2017 to June 2022), were
through proper bank channel i.e. crossed banking instrument, whereas, at the time of purchases
from the alleged suppliers, both, the buyer and the supplier were duly declared in the sale tax
returns as active and no coercive action at that time was taken against the alleged
blacklisted/blocked suppliers---Respondent / registered persons also produced complete detail of
purchase made along with proof of purchase invoices and bank statements---Before
Commissioner Inland Revenue- Appeals/CIR (A), the Department not only remained unable to
provide any proof of inquiry or involvement of respondent /registered person in purchases of
fake and flying invoices, but also showed unawareness of the business activities of the
respondent/registered persons---Thus, at the time when the supplies were made and invoices
were issued, the suppliers were neither blacklisted nor the invoices issued had any direct nexus
with the blacklisting order---Therefore, the proposed question was answered against the
applicant/department---The CIR(A) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue passed well
speaking orders and had rightly set aside the order-in-original---Thus, no reason / case to
interfere in the concurrent findings of the forums below was made out---Sales Tax Reference
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---
----S. 11(2)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 187---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of
1999), S.14---Assessment /recovery of tax erroneously refunded etc.---Rejection by department--
-Fake/flying invoices issued by the blacklisted/suspended units, allegation of---Burden of proof--
-Whether upon Department or the registered person---Concept of reverse onus---Principle of
presumption of innocence---Scope---In the present case, though Show-Cause Notice was issued
to the respondent /registered person, but record was silent whether before issuance of Show-
Cause Notice any meaningful efforts were made by the Department (sales tax officials ) to
conduct an audit or any proper inquiry was made by exercising powers conferred under the Sales
Tax Act, 1990, (‘the Act 1990’), in order to verify the allegations---It was revealed from the
contents of the Show-Cause Notice that the same had been based on vague allegations and an
assumption, such as; the respondent /registered person had claimed input tax adjustment against
sales tax invoices of suppliers who were subsequently blacklisted/suspended or made inactive by
the Federal Board of Revenue---The court looks to what is clearly said and there is no room for
any intendment nor is there any equity about a tax---There is no presumption as to tax and
nothing is to be read in or implied and one can only look fairly at the language used---The
scheme of the Act, 1990 clearly envisages that the obligation to establish that a person is liable to
pay any tax or charge and the same has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied is
essentially that of the sales tax authorities---The burden to prove the allegations is on the
shoulders of the authorities/department ;and in order to discharge said obligation they have been
vested with wide powers under the Act, 1990---Whoever asserts a fact is also burdened with the
duty to establish that it is highly probable to be true---In some exceptional cases, the legislature,
in its wisdom, has provided for what is known as reverse onus, by placing the burden on the
person against whom an allegation has been made; such as S. 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 and
S.14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---The concept of reverse onus i.e. placing
the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made runs contrary to the
established principle of presumption of innocence---It is, therefore, for said reason that Courts
lean in favour of interpreting or reading down such provision in an effort to safeguard the
fundamental principles of fair trial---There is no provision pari materia with S. 187 of the
Customs Act, 1969, or S.14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in the Act, 1990---
The legislature, therefore, did not intend to reverse the onus of proof in matters relating to the
levy, charge and payment of the tax under the Act, 1990---The proceedings before the
adjudicating authority or the statutory appellate forum under the Act, 1990 are quasi judicial in
nature---When the department alleges that a registered person has committed any illegality, the
former is burdened with a statutory duty to establish before the adjudicating forum, through
persuasive and proper evidence, that the allegations are highly probable to be true, rather than
being unreliable, false or doubtful---The duty to establish facts on the standard of balance of
probabilities is on the department under the Act of 1990, thus, the question was decided against
the department---Commissioner Inland Revenue (A) and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
passed well speaking orders and had rightly set aside the order-in-original---Thus, no reason
/ case to interfere in the concurrent findings of the forums below was made out---Sales Tax
reference Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Darya Khan, Barrister Iftikhar Raza Khan and Munawar Khan Kasi for Appellant.
Muhammad Umar Dogar and Raja Umair Ali for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 28th November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
IQBAL AHMED KASI, J.--- The instant Sales Tax Reference Appeal, under Section 47
of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ('the Act 1990') has been filed by the appellant/department i.e. The
Commissioner Inland Revenue ('CIR'), Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Quetta at Hub, assailing
the order dated 06.10.2023 ('the impugned order'), passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue
('the CIR(A)'), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.1, i.e. M/s. Deenar Industries
(Pvt.) Ltd. ('the registered person') against the Order-in-Original No.04 of 2023-24, dated ; 27-
07-2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue ('DCIR') was allowed by setting
aside the same/order-in-original and order dated 03.02.2025 ('the impugned order'), passed by the
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Karachi Bench) Karachi ('the Appellate Tribunal')
(respondent No.2), whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant/department was dismissed by
upholding the order of the CIR(A).
2. Briefly stated facts arising out of the instant appeal are that during the course of
investigation/inquiry carried out, analysis of the sales tax-cum-federal excise return, the other
data available at e-portal of the FBR and the information received from the Government
Departments and credible information was received that the respondent No.1, having NTN
4437610-3, are involved in suspicious business activities and claiming of inadmissible/illegal
input tax, amounting to Rs.853,964,065/- on the invoices issued by the fraudster units activities
who have already been declared suspended/blacklisted after thorough investigations/inquiries
being non-existent or involved in fraudulent activities or abnormal business activities and un-
verified withholding sales tax amounting to Rs.35,565,984/- during the period July 2017 to June
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly emphasized that the Appellate Tribunal, was
not justified to upheld the decision of CIR (A) and to allow input tax adjustment on account of
supplies received from blacklisted/suspended units; that the forums below without any legal
backing and justification have interfered in the order-in-original, passed by the DCIR, which
otherwise, was well reasoned and passed on the basis of cogent material available on record and
as per law; that the orders impugned passed by the forums below are result of surmises, thus,
warrant interference by this Court.
4 On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/registered person, stated that the
fora-below have passed speaking orders, which are based on sound reasoning, as such, there is
no room available to interfere in the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able
assistance.
6. During arguments, besides other contentions, mainly the following three questions of law
were urged. -
(i) Whether the forums below i.e. CIR (A) and the Appellate Tribunal have failed to
consider that respondent No. 1/registered person has claimed input tax adjustment against fake
and flying invoices, issued by the blacklisted/suspended units (detail whereof is mentioned in the
Show-Cause Notice under section 11(2) of the Act of 1990)?
(ii) Whether the burden to prove the allegations against the respondent No.1/registered
person was upon the concerned authorities or the registered person?
(iii) Whether the forums below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law or
otherwise?
Q. No.1
Whether the forums below i.e. CIR (A) and the Appellate Tribunal have failed to
consider that respondent No.1/registered person has claimed input tax adjustment against fake
and flying invoices, issued by the blacklisted/suspended units (detail whereof is mentioned in the
Show Cause Notice under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1990)?
7. As far as question No.1, is concerned, it has been established by the respondent
No.1/registered person that all the transaction made with the supplier, during the alleged period
from July 2017 to June 2022, were through proper bank channel i.e. crossed banking instrument,
whereas, at the time of purchases from the alleged suppliers, both, the buyer and the supplier
were duly declared in the sale tax returns as active and no coercive action at that time was taken
against the alleged blacklisted/blocked suppliers. To prove his version, the respondent
No.1/registered .persons also produced complete detail of purchases made along with proof of
purchases invoices and bank statements. It also appears from the order impugned of the CIR (A)
that during the course of respondent No.1 's proceeding, the representative of the department was
asked to provide any proof of inquiry or investigation, carried out by them to ascertain from
where did he determined that the respondent No.1/registered person is involved in purchases of
fake and flying invoices, not only he remained mum, but also showed unawareness of the
business activities of the respondent No.1/registered persons, thus, it was well established by the
respondent No.1/registered person that at the time when the supplies were made and invoices
were issued, the suppliers were neither blacklisted nor it is shown that the invoices issued, had
any direct nexus with the blacklisting order, therefore, question No.1 is an answered against the
applicant/department. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in an unreported case titled as
"The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore v. Messrs Eagle Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore" while
dealing with similar nature of issue, has held that:
"It is now well established in legal precedents that if a transaction is conducted while the
suppliers are active and duly registered, any invoices issued are not automatically invalidated by
a subsequent blacklisting or suspension of those suppliers. Therefore, it follows that the denial of
refunds cannot be justified solely based on the later blacklisting of a supplier. In light of this
context, according to subsection (3) of Section 21, all purchasers, including the respondent, who
procured goods before the suppliers' registration was suspended or they were blacklisted, and
who complied with the conditions outlined in Section 73 of the Act, were entitled to claim an
adjustment of input tax."
Q.No.2.
(ii) Whether the burden to prove the allegations against the respondent No.1/registered
person was upon the concerned authorities/department or the registered person?
8. As far as, the second question is concerned, it is an admitted feature of the case that
though show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1/registered person, but record is
silent whether before issuance of show-cause notice any meaningful efforts were made by the
sales tax officials to conduct an audit, or any proper inquiry was made by exercising powers
conferred under the Act of 1990, in order to verify the allegations. It reveals from the contents of
the show-cause notice that the same has been based on vague allegations and an assumption,
such as, the respondent No.1/registered person had claimed input tax adjustment of
Rs.889,530,049/- against sales tax invoices of suppliers who were subsequently
blacklisted/suspended or made inactive by the Federal Board of Revenue. As per show-cause
notice, the claim of the respondent No.1/registered person was not only in violation of the Act of
1990 but was recoverable from the respondent No.1/registered person along with penalty and
default surcharge under Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1990. It appears that in reply to the
show-cause notice, the respondent No.1/registered person stated the legal position that
subsequent blacklisting/suspension of the suppliers does not require a registered person to repay
the amount of sales tax already adjusted by him on such supplies. He also contended that it has
already been held in number of cases that subsequent blacklisting or suspension of the suppliers
does not empower the FBR to recover the amount of input tax already adjusted by the buyer.
Apart from this, as stated above, it appears from the record that the respondent No.1/registered
person fully complied with the provisions of Section 73 of the Act of 1990 and payment to the
suppliers mentioned in the show-cause notice was made through proper bank challans. Coming
back to the relevant question, it is settled law that, while interpreting fiscal statutes, the court
looks to what is clearly said and there is no room for any intendment nor is there any equity
about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax and nothing was to be read in or implied and one
could only look fairly at the language used.
9. The scheme of the Act of 1990 clearly envisages that the obligation to establish that a
person was liable to pay any tax or charge and the same has not been levied or paid or has been
short-levied is essentially that of the sales tax authorities. The burden to prove the allegations is
on the shoulders of the authorities/department. In order to discharge this obligation they have
been vested with wide powers under the Act of 1990. It is well settled that whoever asserts a fact
is also burdened with the duty to establish that it is highly probable to be true. In some
exceptional cases, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided for what is known as reverse onus,
by placing the burden on the person against whom an allegation has been made. Section 187 of
the Customs Act, 1969 and section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are such
illustrations. The concept of reverse onus i.e. placing the burden on the person against whom an
allegation has been made runs contrary to the established principle of presumption of innocence.
It is therefore, for this reasons that Courts lean in favour of interpreting or reading down such
provision in an effort to safeguard the fundamental principles of fair trial. There is no provision
pari materia with section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 or section 14 of the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999, in the Act of 1990. The legislature, therefore, did not intend to
reverse the onus of proof in matters relating to the levy, charge and payment of the tax under the
Act of 1990. The proceedings before the adjudicating authority or the statutory appellate forum
under the Act of 1990 are quasi judicial in nature. When the department alleges that a registered
person has committed any illegality, the former is burdened with a statutory duty to establish
before the adjudicating forum, through persuasive and proper evidence, that the allegations are
highly probable to be true, rather than being unreliable, false or doubtful. The duty to establish
facts on the standard of balance of probabilities is on the department under the Act of 1990, thus,
the question No.2 also goes against the department.
Q.No.3.
(iii) Whether the forums below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law or
otherwise?
10. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the forums
below i.e. CIR (A) and the Appellate Tribunal, have passed well speaking orders, in the light of
the applicable provisions of the relevant law, discussed each and every point related to the matter
in hand and have rightly set aside the order-in-original of the DCIR, thus, this Court finds no
reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the forums below.
For the above reasons, the instant Sales Tax Reference Appeal No.06 of 2025, is hereby
dismissed.
MQ/149/Bal. Appeal dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.
Related judgments
Burden of Proof in case of non custom paid vehicle
PLJ 2009 Quetta 76 (DB) · Balochistan High Court · 2009
Messrs World Trade Enterprises, Customs C&F Agents and others V. Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-I and others,
PTD 2017 1472 · Balochistan High Court · 2017
Collector of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs V. Messrs Haji Ballow Khan and another,
PTD 2015 1080 · Balochistan High Court · 2015
The Director Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation Customs FBR, Quetta through Deputy Director and others V. Messrs International Business Hub and others,
PTD 2023 1695 · Balochistan High Court · 2023
Collector, Model Customs Collectorate, Custom House, Gawadar at Gaddani V. Messrs Byco Petroleum Pakistan Limited and another,
PTD 2025 112 · Balochistan High Court · 2025