Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2839 2019 SLD 2839 2019 PTD 2082 2020 PTCL 64 (2020) 122 TAX 336
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2018, heard on 8th March, 2019.
ATHAR MINALLAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Saad M. Hashmi, Sardar Abdul Wahab Farid, Nauman Rafique, Sufyan Qayyum, Adnan Haider Randhawa and Riffat Hussain Malik.
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Waqar Ahmed Butt, Saeed Ahmed Zaidi, Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi,

ER SHALIMAR RECORDING AND BROADCASTING COMPANY THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISLAMABAD

VS

THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU), ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 131,131(5),132(2)(a)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Finance Act, 2018

Section: 132(2A)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)- -Ss. 131(5) second proviso [as inserted by Finance Act (XXX of 2018)] & S.132(2A) [as inserted by Finance Act (VII of 2005)]- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Statutory right of appeal, decision of-Time-frame-Mandatory or Directory nature of statute-Intention of Legislature-Taxpayers were proceeded against by authorities who challenged same before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue seeking extension of injunctive orders under S. 131(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was unable to decide issue within statutory timeframe given under S. 132(2A) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Validity-Time prescribed for validity of an order passed regarding recovery of tax and deciding appeal is same and S. 131 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, could not be read in isolation-Provisions of S. 131 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had to be examined and interpreted in context of other provisions related to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue so that legislative intent and scheme could be discovered-Both Ss. (131 & 132(2A)) prescribed time limitations and if time specified in second proviso of S. 131 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was treated as mandatory and otherwise in case of 132(2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 then it would give rise to an anomalous and odd situation- Appeal might not have been decided within time prescribed under S. 132(2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 because of acts or omissions on part of department or Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and yet taxpayer would be exposed to hardship by depositing liability- If time prescribed under S. 132(2A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was treated as mandatory, it would lead to an even more preposterous consequence because in such an eventuality party that exercised statutory right of appeal would be left without a remedy because proceedings would have abated on lapse of time-Statutory right of appeal would become redundant and losing right of appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was of great significance having regard to scheme of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-Legislature, therefore, could not have intended to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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