Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3509 2007 SLD 3509 2007 PLJ 11
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4459 of 2003, heard on 19.6.2006
SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.
Mr. Muhammad Azhar, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Sagheer Ahmed, Advocate for
Respondents

CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MULTAN, CANTONMENT BOARD MULTAN

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through SECRETARY FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 4 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, S. 52--Rented out auctioned properties--Distinguished between cantonment Board and Executive Officer--Multan Cantonment Board was treated as "assesee in default"--Board filed appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) who directed de-novo proceeding be made--Petitioner filed appeal before I.T.A.T. Lahore which affirmed findings of Commissioner Income Tax--Petitioner filed reference with income tax tribunal--Later this was withdrawn and matter was agitated before Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, who assessed the petitioner liable for payment--Question arises as to whether the tax has been paid year wise or was it calculated in unison and forcibly recovered--This needs a through inquiry and appraisal of evidence which is not possible in present jurisdiction--It would be only fair to permit the parties to substantiate their claim with reasons and evidence--Thus, the respondent has to re-assess the matter and determine as to whether Cantonment Board and the Executive Officer are the same identities or not this also need detailed appraisal of evidence and adjudication--Proceedings conducted by respondents were not in consonance with law or procedure--Petition allowed. Judgment The Multan Cantonment Board rented out/auctioned certain properties belonging to it, located at Metro Plaza and Mall Shopping Center Cantonment by public bidding during the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1993-94, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000. According to Respondent No. 5 the Board was required to collect tax under Section 50 (7-A) of the Repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The issue was raised with the Board, but they refused to pay the tax pleading that shops were rented out and not auctioned. Thus, it was treated as "assessee in default" in terms of Section 52 of the Ordinance and the liability was determined for 3247 days (January, 1990 to December, 1998) and Rs. 25,54,548/- were assessed in this context, recovery was made to the extent of Rs. 19,28,580/- from the account of the Board. The Board termed this action as illegal and made representations to the higher authorities and also filed an appeal before the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492