| 10). Learned counsel for the petitioner on conclusion of his arguments tried to argue that the Capital Development Authority has been collecting CVT or that it should be directed to do so. We have found the arguments of the learned counsel to be misconceived. In the first place nothing has been placed on the record to show that Capital Development Authority has been collecting CVT. In the second place the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us to hold that Capital Development Authority should be directed to collect CVT, for the various reasons enumerated above. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that even if CDA has actually recovered CVT from any person who has purchased property from the petitioner, (and which should have been collected by the petitioner) the department shall after due verification of the same, give due credit to the petitioner. 11). For the reasons enumerated above, we are in no manner of doubt that the sale, purchase, transfer and other similar transactions are undertaken between the petitioner company which is the owner of the immovable assets and buyer in whose favour the transfer takes place, therefore, it is only logical that the petitioner should be obligated to collect CVT from the purchaser and deposit it with the Federal Government. Even otherwise, the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of sections 7(d) and (4) of the Act read with Rule 4 of Rules, 1990 cannot deny its liability by relying upon hyper technicalities and stratagems. 12). The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legal, procedural or jurisdictional error, defect or flaw in the impugned judgment that may furnish basis for grant of leave. Result: Petition dismissed. |
