Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 662 2022 SLD 662 2022 PTCL 174
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2021, announced on 26th January, 2022
MR., JUSTICE BABAR SATTAR
Petitioner by: Ch. Imran ul Haq, Advocate.
Respondents by: Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi and Ms. Arooj Zeb Abbasi, Advocates.

M/S. AKBAR & ZAKRIA PIPES (PVT.) LTD.

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ETC.

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 10,66,74

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 24A

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE ACT, 2007 Section 4 Powers and functions of the Board.- Section 4 of the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007 identifies powers and functions of the Board. And section 4(1)(s) identifies setting up a mechanism and processes that facilitate removal of grievances and complaints of taxpayers as one such function. Notwithstanding such function, the Board in exercise of its authority under section 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 simply refused to take into account the utter delinquency on part of tax officials to facilitate a taxpayer filing a tax return and a refund claim-despite repeatedly reaching out the tax authorities with such request. While discharging statutory authority public officer have fiduciary role. The state is not meant to act as a tormentor of citizen.- It, appears that the respondents have remained completely oblivious to the fiduciary aspect of their responsibilities to the petitioner as a taxpayer. Within any civilized system of rule of law, the State is not meant to act as a tormentor of citizens. GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 Section 24A See Sections 10, 66 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.  INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE Purpose of law is to define and clarify the role and responsibilities of both the state and citizen.- The purpose of law is to define and clarify the role and the responsibilities of both the State and the citizens, and the requirements of law are equally applicable to both the State and the citizens as prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution. Provisions of Limitation Act are of a mandatory nature.- It is now settled that provisions of Limitation Act are of a mandatory nature and anyone filing a claim beyond the limitation period must explain as to why the delay was caused while seeking its condonation. LIMITATION ACT, 1908 General See Interpretation of Statute. SALES TAX ACT, 1990 General See Section 4 of the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007. Sections 10, 66 74 The order passed by FBR refusing to condone delay in relation to petitioner’s claim for refund is mala fide in law and falls out of Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as the Board acted in mechanical fashion and failed to take in to…
🔒
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