Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1008 2021 SLD 1008 2021 PTD 1082 (2021) 124 TAX 340
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 989 of 2018, decided on 1st March, 2021, Date of hearing: 2nd February, 2021
ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Ovais Ali Shah for Plaintiff. Anwar Kamal, Assistant Attorney General for Defendant No. 1. Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi for Defendants Nos. 2-14.

RELIANCE PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

VS

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE AND 7 OTHERS

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 40B

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 6

Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)----S.40B--Finance Act (XXX of 2018), S.6(11)--General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6--Posting of Officers of Inland Revenue / Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) at manufacturing premises of taxpayer-- Omission of proviso to S.40B of Sales Tax Act, 1990 vide Finance Act, 2018--Effect-Plaintiff impugned order of Commissioner to post officers to premises of plaintiff / taxpayer, on ground that such order made under proviso to S.40B of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and same would not survive omission / repeal of said proviso--Validity-- Omission of proviso to S.40B of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was essentially a repeal of said proviso--Effect of such repeal was to save certain actions taken under such repealed provision, which was qualified by words unless a different intention appeared under General Clauses Act, 1897 and such intention could obviously be gathered from amended provision--Intention of Legislature, by omission of said proviso, was to take away power of Commissioner to deploy officers of Department at premises of taxpayers, and to put an end to such postings--With said intention, it would be absurd to suggest that notwithstanding such repeal, officers could continue the monitoring assignment tasked by Commissioner, and therefore saving consequences of repeal under S.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 would not triggered--Impugned order, therefore, did not survive repeal of proviso to S.40B of Sales Tax Act, 1990--Suit was disposed of, accordingly. Commissioner Inland Revenue Karachi v. Pakistan Beverages Ltd. 2018 SCMR 1544; Muhammad Tariq Badar v. National Bank of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 314 and State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh AIR 1955 SC 84 rel. JUDGMENT ADNAN IQBAL CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE:---.--- By this suit the Plaintiff challenged order dated 07-05-2018 issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue to post Officers of Inland Revenue at the premises of the Plaintiff to monitor production or sale of taxable goods and the stocks position. 2. The impugned order was issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue in exercise of powers under the proviso to section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. At the time the suit was filed on 08-05-2018, section 40B of…
🔒
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