| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1638 2021 SLD 1638 2021 PTD 1576 130 TAX 357 |
Sindh High Court
C.P.D. No. 6920 of 2019, Date of hearing and Order:25-03-2021
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE, AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
PETITIONER(S) BY: BARRISTER OVAIS ALI SHAHRESPONDENT(S) BY: MR. AMEER BUKHSH METLO, ADVOCATE MR. KAFEEL AHMED ABBASI DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERALPetitioner(s) by: Barrister Ovais Ali Shah
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Ameer Bukhsh Metlo, Advocate, Mr. Kafeel Ahme
C.P.D. No. 6920 of 2019, Date of hearing and Order:25-03-2021
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE, AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE
PETITIONER(S) BY: BARRISTER OVAIS ALI SHAHRESPONDENT(S) BY: MR. AMEER BUKHSH METLO, ADVOCATE MR. KAFEEL AHMED ABBASI DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERALPetitioner(s) by: Barrister Ovais Ali Shah
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Ameer Bukhsh Metlo, Advocate, Mr. Kafeel Ahme
AACHEE GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. & ANOTHERVS. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 193,228
JUDGMENT AGHA FAISAL, JUSTICE:---.--- The petitioner has assailed summons / notice dated 22.10.2019 (Impugned Notice�) issued thereto under section 37 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 (Act�) predicated inter alia on the grounds that the same was patently an abuse of process and manifestly unjust / prejudicial towards the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the Impugned Notice was served upon the petitioner requiring personal appearance and submission of its comprehensive record[1] for the preceding five years, within seven days; failing which it would be deemed that the petitioner was involved in tax fraud. It is manifest from the Impugned Notice that no reference was made to any identified inquiry being conducted by the officer issuing the same. 3. Per petitioner�s learned counsel, the Impugned Notice was untenable in law, inter alia, having been issued other than in conformity with the provision where under it was issued; amounted to a fishing / roving exercise couched to conduct an unmerited audit[2] of the petitioner; and alleged / presumed / insinuated tax fraud, yet without recourse to the relevant provision of the Act[3]. It was concluded that the Impugned Notice be set aside; while placing reliance on Taj International[4] and Iqbal Sons[5]. 4. The department�s counsel supported the Impugned Notice; bulwarked upon his contention that the same was predicated upon an alleged misuse of an SRO. Learned counsel admitted that while there was no specific inquiry mentioned in the Impugned Notice, and / or in the comments filed on behalf of the department, however, mere provision of the requisite documentation / information would take the matter to its logical conclusion; hence, there was no occasion for the Impugned Notice to merit interference herein[6]. The learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that section 37 of the Act empowered an officer of Inland Revenue and that no cavil could be articulated to the Impugned Notice having been issued by such an officer. It was argued that while there was no specified inquiry / case pending before the relevant officer as of date, however, such proceedings could materialize post compliance of the Impugned Notice by 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