| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1444 2020 SLD 1444 (2020) 122 TAX 274 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CIVIL PETITION No. 398-L OF 2018 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS Nos.584-L, 671-L TO 675-L, 774-L, 775-L, 812-L, 815-L, 911-L,912-L, 913-L, 919-L, 984-L, 985-L, 1005-L, 1148-L, 1684-L,1688-L TO 1690-L, 1729-L, 1796-L, 1812-L, 1821-L TO 1827-L,1850-L TO 1854-L, 18
MR., JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, MR., JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
For the petitionersFor the respondent (s) Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, ASC.For the respondent (s) Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. For the respondent (s) Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, ASC.
CIVIL PETITION No. 398-L OF 2018 A/W CIVIL PETITIONS Nos.584-L, 671-L TO 675-L, 774-L, 775-L, 812-L, 815-L, 911-L,912-L, 913-L, 919-L, 984-L, 985-L, 1005-L, 1148-L, 1684-L,1688-L TO 1690-L, 1729-L, 1796-L, 1812-L, 1821-L TO 1827-L,1850-L TO 1854-L, 18
MR., JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, MR., JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
For the petitionersFor the respondent (s) Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, ASC.For the respondent (s) Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. For the respondent (s) Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, ASC.
THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, RTO-II, LAHOREVSM/S HAMZA NASIR WIRE & OTHERS (IN CP.398-L OF 2018)
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 2(18),11,11(3),30,30(1),30(3),31,45A(4), 47
Law: Federal Excise Act, 2005
Section: 29
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 209,210(1)
THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE:---.--- Three petitions bearing CP No.398-L of 2018, CP No.584-L of 2018 and CP No.674-L of 2018 challenge a common judgment by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 08.12.2017 (impugned judgment) which sets aside the show cause notices, inter alia, dated 14.11.2016 (in some petitions) issued to the respondent-taxpayers under Section 11(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 (Act) by Officers of Inland Revenue (OIRs), namely, Deputy Commissioners of Inland Revenue (DCIRs) and Assistant Commissioners of Inland Revenue (ACIRs). The notices alleged non-payment or short payment of sales tax by the respondent-taxpayers during the tax periods mentioned therein. The remaining petitions assail other judgments that follow the aforenoted impugned judgment and the case law cited by it. 2. The impugned judgment notes that the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) vide notification dated 21.07.2016 (Notification-I), appointed eight Commissioners of Inland Revenue heading different Zones functioning under the Corporate Regional Tax Office, Lahore to exercise powers and perform functions as conferred under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Such authority was reposed by Notification-I in relation to specified cases or classes of cases of tax payers falling within the respective territorial jurisdictions of the Commissioners. It is observed by the impugned judgment that rather than exercising such powers themselves, inter alia, the CIR Zone-III, RTO-II, Lahore (CIR), vide notification dated 01.08.2016 (Notification-II) authorised his subordinate OIRs, heading twelve different units in his Zone, to exercise their powers and perform their functions as conferred by the Act and its subordinate Rules in relation to specified cases or classes of cases of tax payers falling within their territorial jurisdictions. 3. In conclusion, the learned High Court held that Notification-II by the CIR delegated the powers that had been assigned to him by the FBR vide Notification-1. Such delegation by the CIR under the subsequent Notification-II to the OIRs constituted sub-delegation without the sanction of law. Therefore, in 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