| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 12 2018 SLD 12 2018 PTCL 325 (2018) 118 TAX 339 2018 PTD 1617 |
W.P. No. 2132-P/2015, decision Date : 30-01-2018, hearing Date : 23.11.2017.
Petitioners by: Ghulam Shoaib Jally and Qaiser Abbas Bangash, Advocates.
Respondents by: Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui and Asif .F Vardag, Advocates.
CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE
VS
M/S CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE & 2 OTHERS
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 2(8),9(2),32
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: 23,45,46,46(1),46(2),46(3),46(4),46(5),4 5(8)
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 177
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 41(1),248(1)
THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: YAHYA AFRIDI, CHIEF JUSTICE:---.--- Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of two Writ Petitions, as they both have common questions of law and facts involved therein. The particulars of the writ petitions are:- 1. W.P No. 2132-P/2015 (Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Jamrud Road, Peshawar...Vs...M/S Cherat Cement Company Ltd, Through its Chief Executive and two others). 2. W.P No. 2133-P/2015 (Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Jamrud Road, Peshawar...Vs...M/S Lucky Cement Company Limited, Through its G.M and two others) 2. The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar, the petitioner in both the petitions seeks a common relief in terms that:- 1. That according to sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Ombudsman Ordinance, 2002, Federal Tax Ombudsman had no authority to entertain complaint filed by the respondent No.1. 2. That re-initiating proceedings in the complaint after departmental audit is totally without jurisdiction. 3. That the jurisdiction assumed by respondent No.2 on the complaint of respondent No.1 and recommendation and findings given and made in order dated 22.1.2013 are void, illegal without jurisdiction and have no legal effect and liable to be struck down. 4. That the order and judgment of respondent No.3 dated 30.10.2014 on the presentation of petition is even not sustainable in the law and liable to be declared void. 5. Any other appropriate remedy not specifically asked for may also be granted. 3. The claim of the present petitioners has a chequered history. However, for determination of the present dispute between the parties, the relevant facts, in chronological order, are as under:- 15.02.2007 The genesis of the dispute in hand relates to the Federal Excise Duty recovered from M/S Lucky Cement Company Limited and M/S Cherat Cement Company Limited ("Respondent-Companies") during the period 1996-1999, which was challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court vide W.P No.1147/1997 decided on 25.05.2001, and finally maintained by the Apex Court in decision dated 15.02.2007 reported as Lucky Cement's case (2007 PTD 1656). 06.07.2013 M/S Lucky Cement…
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