| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 752 2022 SLD 752 2022 PTD 716 2022 PTCL 793 (2023) 128 TAX 501 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 2415 of 2016, decided on 31st May, 2021, Dates of hearing: 20th, 22nd January, 12th, 26th February and 4th March, 2021.
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Ahmed Hussain and Ms. Pooja Kalpana for Plaintiff. Anwar Kamal, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant No.1. Nemo, for Defendant No.2. Syed Mohsin Imam and Aqeel Qureshi for Defendant No.3.
Suit No. 2415 of 2016, decided on 31st May, 2021, Dates of hearing: 20th, 22nd January, 12th, 26th February and 4th March, 2021.
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Ahmed Hussain and Ms. Pooja Kalpana for Plaintiff. Anwar Kamal, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant No.1. Nemo, for Defendant No.2. Syed Mohsin Imam and Aqeel Qureshi for Defendant No.3.
SALEEM BUTT
VS
PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 120,177,177(1)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--S. 177(1) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 , 54 Suit for declaration and injunction Mala fide, proof of Show-cause notice Plaintiff / taxpayer assailed show-cause notice to conduct audit on the plea of mala fide and discrimination Validity Mere allegation of mala fides was not enough to dislodge presumption of correctness attached to official acts Before 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 any particulars and allegation of mala fides which required no probe Audit notice could have been discriminatory to plaintiff / taxpayer and offended his fundamental right under Art. 25 of the Constitution, if notice had not assigned any reasons Notice had given plausible reasons for asking for documents under S.177(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but plaintiff / taxpayer did not reply the notice High Court declined to interfere in the matter as plaintiff / taxpayer did not attack grounds taken in the notice nor set up a case for discrimination Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Chenone Stores Ltd. v. Federal Board of Revenue 2012 PTD 1815; Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Sialkot v. Allah Din Steel and Rolling Mills 2018 SCMR 1328; Federal Board of Revenue v. Chenone Stores Ltd. 2018 PTD 208; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 PTD 1484; Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739; Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 SCMR 802 and Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, RTO, Rawalpindi v. Khan Filling CNG Station, Rawalpindi 2017 SCMR 1414 ref. JUDGMENT: ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE:---.--- By this suit the Plaintiff has challenged notice dated 10-11-2016 issued under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (impugned notice), calling upon the Plaintiff to provide record for audit of his income tax affairs for the tax year 2013. By an earlier Suit No. 1872/2016 the Plaintiff had also challenged…
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