Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1502 = 2020 SLD 1502 = 2020 PTD 1464 = 2020 PTCL 620 = (2021) 124 TAX 490 = 2020 PLD 632
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1014 of 2018, decision Dated: 17-03-2020,Dates of hearing: 4th, 10th and 17-03-2020.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Chaudhary Muhammad Ali for Petitioner.Malik Zafar Ali Thaheem for FBR.Mehar Zameer Hussain Sundhal, Deputy Attorney General for
Respondents.

RELIANCE COMMODITIES (PRIVATE) LTD.VSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 4B,4B(3),4B(4),4B(5),120,122(5A),122(9), 137(1),210,210(1),210(1A)

THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, the judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. Hence, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the law givers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself (Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge, US. Supreme Court) JAWAD HASSAN, J.-The nucleus of the controversy fallen for determination is the anthropology of Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) viz a viz its character and nature for being a complete code onto itself with the semantic underpinnings as to exclusion of the machinery provisions of the Ordinance i.e. Section 122(5A) read with Section 122(9) of the Ordinance. The findings will also discuss the principles of interpretation employed for fiscal laws as well as the maintainability of writ petition against show cause notices on the touchstone of the ripeness doctrine. The Petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) by challenging two show cause notices dated 22.12.2017 and 03.01.2018 respectively issued by the Respondent No.3/Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue on the ground that aforesaid-Respondent had no power to issue the same under section 122(5A) read with Section 122(9) of the Ordinance as the power to issue such notices only laid with the Respondent No.2/Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 4B of the Ordinance. I. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 2. The Petitioner is the part of the Fatima Group of Companies which has made significant investments in large-scale manufacturing plants, utilizing technology and promoting manufacturing excellence, which extends to fertilizer, sugar, textile, commodities trading, mining and energy. It is a private limited company and is also a leading commercial exporter/importer of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register