| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 710 2020 SLD 710 2020 PTD 1060 |
Peshawar High Court
W.P No. 886-M, W.P No. 991-M, W.P No. 291-M/2020, W.P No. 696-M/2019 (M), W.P No. 1366-M/2019 (M), Date of hearing: 18.02,2020, Order Dated: 03.03.2020
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
MR. HAZRAT REFT MAN ADVOCATE MR. ABDUL HALIM KHAN ADVOCATE MR. SHAMS-UL-HADI, ADVOCATE SYED ABDUL HAQ ADVOCATE AND MR. RAHLMULLAH CHIT RAIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS. MR. WILAYATAH KHAN, A.A.G. FOR THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. MR. MUKHTAR AHMAD MANERI
W.P No. 886-M, W.P No. 991-M, W.P No. 291-M/2020, W.P No. 696-M/2019 (M), W.P No. 1366-M/2019 (M), Date of hearing: 18.02,2020, Order Dated: 03.03.2020
SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
MR. HAZRAT REFT MAN ADVOCATE MR. ABDUL HALIM KHAN ADVOCATE MR. SHAMS-UL-HADI, ADVOCATE SYED ABDUL HAQ ADVOCATE AND MR. RAHLMULLAH CHIT RAIL, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS. MR. WILAYATAH KHAN, A.A.G. FOR THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. MR. MUKHTAR AHMAD MANERI
M/S IKRAM ULLAH ASSOCIATES AND 08 OTHERS
VS
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 17 OTHERS HAJI SADIQULLAH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S ELUM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BUNER VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER C & W DIVISION, BUNER AND 09 OTHERS M/
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 2(29),148,150,152(1),153,154,156,156A,15 9,233,233A,234(5)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 247
THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED ARSHAD ALL JUSTICE:---.--- Through this common judgment, we intend to decide this petition as well as other connected petitions, the detail whereof has been given above, as an identical question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions. 2. All the present petitioners are carrying their business either in their individual or through corporate names, however, all of them claim that they are permanent residents of the erstwhile Provincially Administered Tribal Areas ("PATA") and derive their income from the construction business. They have been awarded construction work through different agreements/ work orders. The location of their work is situated in the erstwhile PATA. All the petitioners have alleged their unanimous grievance against the respondents that despite the fact that their income is exempt from the impost of income tax but the Provincial Government, acting as an collecting agent for the Federal Board of Revenue ("FBR"), is deducting advance income tax from their current bills for the work which they have done within the limits of erstwhile PATA. 3. Against that the FBR does not dispute the exemption of the respondents from the impost of income tax, however, it has asserted that in order to avail exemption from levy of income tax, all the petitioners are required to approach the Revenue/Commissioner Income Tax for obtaining exemption certificates u/s 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance"). It is after obtaining the said certificates that their entitlement to exemption shall be determined by Commissioner Income Tax. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record available on case files in light of their able assistance. 5. At this juncture it is pertinent to mention that before the promulgation of 18 amendment through Constitutional Amendment Act No. XXV of 2018 on 24.05.2018, the income of the persons who were settled/located within the territory of the erstwhile PATA were enjoying immunity from payment of income tax provided they were generating their income from their business located within the territory of erstwhile PATA. However, any portion of…
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