| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1619 2021 SLD 1619 2021 PTD 1396 (2022) 125 TAX 304 |
Lahore High Court
P.T.R. No. 400 of 2010, heard on 23rd June, 2021.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, JUSTICE
Malik Abdullah Raza for Applicant. Hashim Aslam Butt for
Respondent.
P.T.R. No. 400 of 2010, heard on 23rd June, 2021.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, JUSTICE
Malik Abdullah Raza for Applicant. Hashim Aslam Butt for
Respondent.
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LAHORE
VS
Messrs KAMAL STEEL REROLLING MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE Ahmad Zia Ch., Civil Judge/Research Officers, LHCRC.
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 120,133,133(2),221
(a) Taxation-- --Factual controversy--Superior courts, jurisdiction of--Scope-- Superior courts could not engage in factual controversies, however an exception had been carved out for situations where a substantial defect in the reading of oral or documentary evidence was pointed out. Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Subhan 1999 SCMR 1245 ref. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)-- --S. 7(1)--Input tax credit, claim of--Fake documentary evidence-- No reliable documentary evidence was provided by the petitioner-tax payer to support its claim of input tax credit, therefore the same should be disallowed (in fact whatever evidence had been provided was fake)-- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and partly allowed. (c) Taxation-- --Notice--Tax liability mentioned in the notice--Scope--Order of adjudication passed on the basis of a ground not stated in the notice was palpably illegal and void on the face of it--Same logic should extend to an order imposing a tax liability for a time period not mentioned in the notice--Purpose of serving a notice on a taxpayer was to notify him of the case against him--When such a document contained incomplete information it could seriously prejudice the taxpayer’s defence. The Collector Central Excise and Land Customs v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840 ref. JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE:---.--- This consolidated judgment shall also decide PTR No.401 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. 2. Through instant Reference Application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“the Ordinance of 2001”), following questions of law, urged to have arisen out of impugned order dated 06.01.2010, passed by learned Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench, Lahore (“Appellate Tribunal”), have been proposed for our opinion:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified to maintain the order of CIT(A) in which it was held that order under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 charging WWF was passed after the period of thirty (30) days whereas the legislature has not prescribed any time limitation in the WWF Ordinance,…
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