Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 6

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 120,120(1A),121,122(1),122(5A),176,176(1 )(a),177,177(1)

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

Repeal of law- Principle- Where Federal law is struck-down by High Court of one Province and is not struck-down or is held valid by High Court of another Province, and in the meantime the Legislature or Federal authority concerned complies with the of first High Court and makes necessary amends or withdraws the law, the effect of that amendment or withdrawal in the other Province would be that of “repeal”- Consequences of which are then set out in S.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Interpretation of statutes-- Fiscal laws- Charging and machinery provisions- Applicability- Unlike a charging provision, a machinery provision in a fiscal statute has to be construed liberally and in a manner that facilitates realization of tax. Friends Sons and Partnership Concern v. The Deputy Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax PLD 1989 Lah. 337 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2009 SCMR 1279 rel. Suit for declaration and injunction- Mala fide- Proof- Notice of providing information- Plaintiff company assailed notice issued by authorities to furnish them record to explain income tax returns filed by the company and also provide record to conduct audit- Plea of plaintiff company was that notice was result of mala fide and discriminatory which had offended Fundamental Right of Art. 25 of the Constitution- Validity- Mere allegation of mala fides was not enough to dislodge presumption of correctness attached to official acts- Before the allegation of mala fides in fact could be allowed to be proved, such mala fides had to be pleaded with particulars- Apart from bald averment of mala fides, plaint did not give particulars- Plea of plaintiff was not worthwhile as the notice did not assign any reasons- Notice in question had given plausible reasons for asking for documents under S. 176 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but plaintiff company did not reply the notice- Plaint did not attack the grounds taken in the notice, nor were such grounds addressed during the course of proceedings- Plaintiff failed to set up a case for discrimination- Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Sakrand Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PTCL 2014 CL. 154;…

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