| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 321 2016 SLD 321 2016 PTD 1056 |
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos. 2181 to 2183, 2211, 2316, 2329 to 2331, 2367 to 2371, 2374, 2375, 2393, 2475 to 2477, 2494 to 2499, 2525, 2526, 2546, 2558, 2568, 2570 to 2572, 2574, 2575, 2596, 2597, 2601, 2602, 2605, 2614 to 2619, 2634, 2635, 2332 of 2015 and 141 of 2016, de
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Mushtaq Qazi, Haider Ali Khan, Ali Almani, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Usman Alam, Ammar Athar Saeed, Kashif Hanif, Faiz Durrani, Sarnia Faiz Durrani, Furrukh Ansari, Zulfiqar Ali Memon, Omair Akbar Soomro, Salman Shaikh, Muhammad Ishaq Khan,
Suits Nos. 2181 to 2183, 2211, 2316, 2329 to 2331, 2367 to 2371, 2374, 2375, 2393, 2475 to 2477, 2494 to 2499, 2525, 2526, 2546, 2558, 2568, 2570 to 2572, 2574, 2575, 2596, 2597, 2601, 2602, 2605, 2614 to 2619, 2634, 2635, 2332 of 2015 and 141 of 2016, de
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Mushtaq Qazi, Haider Ali Khan, Ali Almani, Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, Usman Alam, Ammar Athar Saeed, Kashif Hanif, Faiz Durrani, Sarnia Faiz Durrani, Furrukh Ansari, Zulfiqar Ali Memon, Omair Akbar Soomro, Salman Shaikh, Muhammad Ishaq Khan,
Messrs YUNUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
VS
PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division) and 4 others
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 4B,DivisionII-A,Pt.-I,First Schedule
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXIX,Rr.1&2
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-- --Ss. 4-B & Div. II-A, Pt.-I, First Schedule--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--Suit for declaration and injunction-- Interim Injunction, grant of--Super tax, vires of--Plaintiffs were assessees and they had assailed imposition of super tax levied pursuant to S.4-B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, being unconstitutional and invalid--Validity--Plaintiffs were unable to make out prima facie case as it was merely a challenge to the constitutionality of a law validly enacted by parliament--Plaintiffs might have a better reading of law but that would not make out a prima facie case for them to seek indulgence against a validly enacted law which remained in operation and was applicable--Unconstitutionality of the provision on the ground of mala fides and discrimination were mere assertions whereas, plaintiffs failed to substantiate the same prima facie with any material or cogent reasons--Balance of convenience also did not lie in favour of plaintiffs--Irreparable loss/injury would be caused to defendants instead of plaintiffs as even if ultimately it was held by High Court that such levy of super tax was unconstitutional, plaintiffs would be entitled for refund/adjustment--Passing of any injunctive order in the nature of restraint and allowing plaintiffs to file their income tax returns without depositing super tax, when the same was being demanded on the basis of a provision which for the time being was validly existing, the same would cause irreparable loss to exchequer--Application was dismissed in circumstances. The Paracha Textile Mill Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (Suit No.430 of 2016) fol. The Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. Lahore and others v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others 1997 SCMR 894; Messrs Quetta Textile Mills Limited through Chief Executive v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Sindh Secretariat, Kamal Attaturk Road, Karachi and another 2002 CLC 512; Messrs Inter-Ocean Cargo Services, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others 1992 PTD 1411;…
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