Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 614 2021 SLD 614 (2021) 124 TAX 271 2022 PTD 852 2022 PTCL 867
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 4488/2021/BWP ETC., Date of decision & hearing: 30.09.2021
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) By: Mr. Mushtaq Musaddiq, Advocate in the titled as well as W.P. No. 5316 of 2021 / BWP. Mr. M. Abdul Rasheed Rashid, Advocate in W.P. No. 4703 / 2021. Malik Munir Ahmad Waran, Advocate in W.Ps. No. 7546 7557 of 2021 / BWP. Mr. Muhammad As

ABDUL HAMEED

VS

PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND SEVEN OTHERS

Law: Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012

Section: 6(3),6(4)(C),6(5),6(7),6(15),6(16)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4,10A,25

PUNJAB FINANCE ACT, 2012 (XLI OF 2012) Sections: 6(3)(5) 6(4)(C) - Punjab Finance Act, 2010 sections: 6, 60) 6(2)(g) - Punjab Finance Act, 2017, sections: 3. 6(2)(b) - Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles: 4, 10-A 25 - Recovery of short payment of CVT - Registration of Power of Attorney by the Sub- Registrar - Audit conducted by the inspector of stamps for the period from 01 08 2010 to 20.02.2012 and noticed deficiency under head CVT as provided in section 6(3) 6(5) of Act of 2012 - Notices issued to the petitioner by the sub-registrar concerned, seeking payment of specified amount therein, payable under the prevalent and applicable law on the date of registration of Power of Attorney - Validity - Challenge to Constitutional petition - FACTS The Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned notice bearing No. SR/RYK/195 dated 16.07.2020 (the Notice) issued by Respondent No. 5 (Sub Registrar. Rahim Yar Khan) seeking payment of specified amount therein on the alleged ground that Capital Value Tax (the CVT) payable under the prevalent and applicable law on the date of registration of Power of Attorney on 27.10.2010 in favour of the Petitioner could not be collected in full, as such, the Petitioner is liable to pay the deficient amount of the CVI. In the connected petitions, similar notices are impugned which had been issued by the concerned Sub-Registrars on different dates seeking recovery of alleged short payment of the CVT. ARGUMENTS Report and parawise comments were filed by the Respondents in the titled petition. Learned Law Officer under instructions submitted that the said report and parawise comments be considered regarding all the connected petitions since the questions involved therein are identical. It was candidly submitted that the impugned notice(s) was/were issued to recover payment of the outstanding CVT on the registration of Power of Attorney(s) which could not be duly calculated and collected at the time of registration. Inspector of Stamps conducted audit for the period from 01-08-2010 to 20-02-2012 and noticed deficiency under the head CVT as provided in sections 6(3) (5) of the Act of 2012. The main thrust of arguments of learned counsel for…
🔒
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