Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1627 2021 SLD 1627 2021 PTD 1315 (2021) 124 TAX 77 2021 SCMR 1362 2021 PTCL 794
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 489, 490 of 2013 and 1302 of 2014, decided and hearing Date : 31-03-2021 (On appeal from the order Dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in S.A.Os. Nos. 17 and 18 of 2000)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shoaib Jally, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all cases). Isaac Ali Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (in C.As. Nos.489 and 490 of 2013).

THE COMMISSIONER IR (LEGAL), RTO, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS

VS

AGE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., 97-A INDUSTRIAL ESTATE JAMRUD ROAD, PESHAWAR THROUGH DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 80C,Second Schedule

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed]--S. 80C Second Sched., Pt IV, Cl. 9 [as amended by the Finance Act, 1996]--Presumptive tax regime--Finance Act, 1996 amended Cl. (9) of Part IV of the Second Sched. to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (“Clause 9”) by substituting the words “who opts out of” the presumptive tax regime, with the words “unless he opts for” the presumptive tax regime--Question as to whether or not the amendment made to “Clause 9” by the Finance Act, 1996 was procedural in nature and hence would have retrospective effect--Held, that as originally inserted, Cl. 9 gave the choice of opting out of S. 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (‘the 1979 Ordinance’) if the option, as given in terms of the first proviso, was properly exercised--Thus, S. 80C applied unless the “opt-out” was triggered--In other words, the legal meaning of income stood altered in respect of the payments within the ambit of S. 80C unless the assessee concerned took steps to the contrary--Amendment made to Cl. 9 made by the Finance Act, 1996 reversed this position, and now provided that it was only if the option given in terms of the proviso was exercised that S. 80C applied--In other words, the assessee had to “opt-in” into the Presumptive Tax Regime--If the option was not exercised, the legal meaning of income, even in respect of the payments within the ambit of S. 80C, was not altered--Prior to the amendment, the legal meaning of income stood altered to the extent of S. 80C unless the assessee did something; after the amendment, the legal meaning of income did not stand altered unless the assessee did something--Said two resultant situations were starkly different, and each had a substantive effect that was diametrically opposed to the other--In such circumstances the amendment made to Cl. 9 by the Finance Act, 1996 could not be regarded as procedural, having retrospective effect. JUDGMENT Munib Akhtar, JUSTICE At the conclusion of the hearing, the following short order was made: “For the reasons to be recorded later, Civil Appeals No. 489- 490/2013 are allowed whereas Civil Appeal No. 1302/2014 is adjourned.” 2. The matters arise out of the Income Tax…
🔒
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