| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 298 = 2016 SLD 298 = 2016 PTD 622 = 2016 PLJ 170 |
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos. 1764, 2214, 2299, 2300, 2339, 2439, 2357 and 2515of 2014 and 142, 794, 937, 1034 and 1035 of 2015, decided on8th September, 2015. Dates of hearing: 22nd, 25th, 28th May,2nd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 15th July, 2015.
MUHAMMAD SHAFT SIDDIQUI, J
Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Pooja Kalpna, Nasir Latif Khan and Aamir Raza for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos. 1764 and 2214 of 2014).S. Owais Ali Shah for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos.2299 and 2300 of 2014).Behzad Haider for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos. 2339, 2391
Suits Nos. 1764, 2214, 2299, 2300, 2339, 2439, 2357 and 2515of 2014 and 142, 794, 937, 1034 and 1035 of 2015, decided on8th September, 2015. Dates of hearing: 22nd, 25th, 28th May,2nd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 13th and 15th July, 2015.
MUHAMMAD SHAFT SIDDIQUI, J
Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Pooja Kalpna, Nasir Latif Khan and Aamir Raza for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos. 1764 and 2214 of 2014).S. Owais Ali Shah for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos.2299 and 2300 of 2014).Behzad Haider for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos. 2339, 2391
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and othersVSPAKISTAN THE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION and others
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 2(29),39(1),236M,236N,227
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 9
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-- --S. 227--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9--Jurisdiction of civil court, bar on--Scope--Vires of law--Such bar is only with regard to proceedings or orders made under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and does not preclude a challenge to vires of law or statute framed or amendment inserted therein by parliament--Civil courts are courts of ultimate jurisdiction and, therefore, such jurisdiction is being enjoyed by High Court, is sufficient to dispel any challenge of defendant with regard to maintainability of such suit. HMC v. Fateh Jeans 1991 MLD 284; Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus PLD 1997 SC 3; Hamid Hussain v. GOWP PLD 1974 SC 356 and Sanofi A vends v. Province of Sindh PLD 2009'Kar. 69 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes-- --Stretching of meaning--Principles--Interpretation should be such that if stretched to its maximum elasticity it should not cross limits of rationality. (c) Words and phrases-- -- 'Deemed'--Connotation--Word 'deemed' encompasses all possible things that could have been received but not received by a person. (d) Interpretation of statutes-- --Legislation--Constitutionality of--Scope--Law should be saved rather than be destroyed and court must lean in favour of upholding constitutionality of legislation--Rule of constitutional interpretation is that there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of legislative enactments unless ex facie it is violative of constitution. (e) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-- --Ss. 2(29), 39(1), 236-M & 236-N [as inserted by Finance Act (IX of 2014] Second Schedule, Part I, clauses 57(I)(viii), 99 & 100--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54--Suit for declaration and injunction--Bonus shares, Income tax on--Vires--Plaintiffs were assessees and assailed vires of Ss. 2(29), 39(1), 236-M & 236-N inserted in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereby income tax had been levied on bonus shares--Validity--Any company after making profit paid income tax thereon, it then either distributed profit as dividend or if required, the company consumed profit as capital reserves by issuing bonus shares to its…