Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 11,25,25(1),25(2),72B

Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005

Section: 45,45(1),46,46(1)

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 177,214-C

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.14,R.2

SALES TAX ACT, 1990 (VII OF 1990) Section: 25 - Order 14, Rule. 2 CPC - Federal Excise Act, 2005, Sections: 45 & 46 - Access to record, documents etc: - Departmental audit - Selection for audit without providing any reason - Selection for audit u/s 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and u/s 45 & 46 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 through letter for subsequent unaudited period - Issuance of notices for the purpose of audit - Validity - FACTS In all three suits, the Plaintiffs are aggrieved by notice(s) issued under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ("1990 Act") and section 45 and 46 of the Federal Excise Act 2005, ("2005 Act") whereby, they have been selected for audit for the relevant period(s). Since only a legal issue is involved and parties do not wish to lead any evidence, the suits have been finally heard along with listed applications on the legal issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. Since only a legal controversy is involved, on 05.03.2019 with the consent of all, the following legal issues were settled for adjudication of the entire suit under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and the same reads as under:- i. Whether under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and section 45 and 46 of the Federal Excise Act 2005, the Defendant No.3 can select a taxpayer for an audit without providing any reasons for the selection? ii. Whether letter dated 26.08.2016, issued by Defendant No.3 to Defendant No.4, amounts to selection of Plaintiffs case for audit in terms of section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and sections 45 and 46 of the Federal Excise Act 2005 and can through such letter the audit be conducted of any "subsequent unaudited period"? iii. Whether the Impugned Notice violates the principles of due process and the law laid down by the superior courts? iv. What should the decree be? ARGUMENTS At the very outset I may state, and this is without any disrespect to any of the learned Counsel, that their arguments have been noted and recorded in this collectively for case, convenience and to avoid overlapping, if any. They have contended that the impugned notice(s) have been issued by the Commissioner, Inland Revenue in violation of section 25 of the 1990 Act and sections 45 and 46 of the…

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