Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 214C,214D

Law: Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007

Section: 4,5

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 214-C & 214-D---Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007, Rr. 4, 5 & proviso---Notification No. SRO 1125(I)/2011 dated 31.12.2011---Notification No. SRO 608(I)/2014 dated 02.07.2014---Selection of case for audit---Retailer, status of---Petitioner was taxpayer and was aggrieved of notice issued by authorities selecting his case for audit---Plea raised by taxpayer was that he was retailer and was not liable for audit in terms of S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Retailers falling in any category mentioned in R.4 of Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007 were required to be registered under Sales Tax Act, 1990 in terms of Chapter-I of Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007---Taxpayer Registration Profile showed that petitioner was retailer registered with sales tax department therefore, he fulfilled requirement prescribed by R. 4 of Sales Tax Special Procedures Rules, 2007---Return filed by petitioner was also appended with record and it showed that it enjoyed benefit of Notification No. S.R.O. 1125(I)/2011 dated 31.12.2011---Authorities could not have selected case of petitioner for audit in terms of Ss.214-C & 214-D of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---High Court set aside notice issued by the authorities---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.--- This writ petition calls into question the legality of notice dated 8.1.2018 whereby the petitioner has been selected for audit in terms of section 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, (the Ordinance). 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a "retailer" by virtue of Rule 4 of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 (the Rules) and that he is required to pay sales tax under SRO No. 1125(I)/2011 dated 31.12.2011 in terms of the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. He further referred to subsection (4) of section 214D of the Ordinance to contend that the petitioner being a retailer under Rule 4 was not liable for audit in terms of section 214C of the Ordinance. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was not registered as…

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