| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 11 2016 SLD 11 2016 PTD 2625 (2017) 116 TAX 143 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1779 of 1999, DATE ofdecision: 12th May, 2016. dates of hearing: 18th, 23rdFebruary and 22nd March, 2016.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICE
Dr. Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.Javed Farooqi for
Respondents.
Constitutional Petition No. D-1779 of 1999, DATE ofdecision: 12th May, 2016. dates of hearing: 18th, 23rdFebruary and 22nd March, 2016.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICE
Dr. Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.Javed Farooqi for
Respondents.
SEEDAT CHAMBERS through Abdul Cadir Adam SeedatVS.WEALTH TAX OFFICER and 3 others
Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)
Section: 2(e)(ii),2(3),3,10(5),23,45A
Law: Limitation Act, 1877
Section: 14
Law: Wealth Tax Rules, 1963
Section: 8(3)
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963) ----- Ss. 2(e)(ii), 2(3), 3, 10(5), 23 & 45A-Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R. 8(3) ------ Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 14 -------- Constitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched. Entry 50-Presumption as to validity of law-Burden of Proof- Association of persons- Scope- 'Assessee'-Meaning and scope-Double taxation- Method of assessment, vires of- Remedy/Forum-Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner Wealth Tax- Mistakes made in assessment order-Effect-Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction-Petitioner challenged the vires of the entire assessment proceedings, the demand notices issued subsequent thereto as well as constitutionality of S. 2(e)(ii) of Wealth Act, 1963 and R. 8(3) of Wealth Tax Rules, 1963-Petitioner's case revolved around some legal aspects as well as factual aspects-Wealth Tax was a Federal Tax and presumption was in favour of the validity of the Legislation and the burden of proof that the same was invalid was on the person who alleged that---Objection, that the department was not justified in assessing the "Association of Persons" (AoP), which amounted to double taxation since respective shares of the wealth had been assessed in the individual hands, was not available to the assessee, since for the tax purposes AoP was always considered to be a separate and distinct entity from the wealth of individual persons-Under S. 2 (3) of the Act, term 'assessee ' meant to be a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money was payable under the Act-Under S. 3 of the Act, subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, there would be charged for every financial year commencing on and from the first day of July, a tax in respect of the net wealth or assets on the corresponding valuation date of every individual, Hindu undivided family, firm, association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule-Deputy Commissioner/Assessing Authority was empowered to evaluate the land/building on the basis of its letting value-Assessee's objection as to method of assessment was the subject matter of appeal-Section 23 of Wealth Tax Act, 1963…