Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 47 2021 SLD 47 2021 PTCL 166 (2021) 123 TAX 447
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 11351/2020, decided on 15th September, 2020.
MR., JUSTICE ASIM
Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Imran Ghazi, Advocate.

MUHAMMAD ZAHID

VS

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ETC.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 114

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 45B,46,47,72B

CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 Article 199 The objection to selection for audit was raised for the first time before High Court in Constitutional Petition, the petitioners failure to invoke remedy manifests its acquiescence/acceptance to an act of selection for audit, the petitioner is estopped to question such act/decision of selection for audit, through this petition.--The fundamental question is that whether petitioner, at material time, raised objection qua its selection for audit or pleaded any purported grievance, bias or prejudice? Record reflected that objection to selection for audit was raised for the first time, while filling appeal before CIR (A) against the assessment order No. 29/2018 dated 28.08.2018. Appeal before CIR(A) was filed on 27.03.2019 and decided on 02.05.2019. Order of CIR(A) was challenged before ATIR, which decided said appeal on 16.10.2019. Order 16.10.2019 attained finality - though opportunity to file Reference application under section 47 of Act, 1990, and to raise question of law, was available - if petitioner was at all aggrieved of the selection or any apparent recurring prejudice - but not availed. Petitioners failure to invoke remedy manifests its acquiescence/ acceptance to an act of selection for audit. And now petitioner is estopped to question such act/decision of selection for audit, through this petition, in view of the Article 114 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and the doctrine of election of the remedies.  The act of filing constitutional petition, in wake of peculiar facts, is devoid of bona-fides and there is no reason to exercise discretion to stall pending proceedings, as decisions taken in said proceedings can be competently challenged in wake of remedies provided under the Act, 1990. The petitioner, one way or the other, is hindering audit proceedings by employing dilatory tactics - who consciously allowed the order of ATIR to have finality, and thereafter [instead of filing Reference under section 47 of Act, 1990] after lapse of almost one year invoked constitutional jurisdiction, in essence throwing challenge to order of 16.10.2019 of ATIR. The act of filing constitutional…
🔒
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