Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 3047 2024 SLD 3047 = 2024 PTD 818 = (2025) 132 TAX 257
Peshawar High Court
505-P OF 2023
BEFORE ABDUL SHAKOOR AND SYED ARSHAD ALI, JJ
Shumail Ahmad Butt for Petitioners. Sanaullah DAG, Ishtiaq Ahmad (Junior) and Asad Jan for
Respondents along with Sharifullah, Assistant Director (Legal).

MESSRS SHAH STEEL INDUSTRY AND OTHERS

VS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH FEDERAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 53, 159, 235, 109A

Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990

Section: 3, 14

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 247

Income Tea Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- Ss. S3, 159, 235 & 109A [as inserted through Finance Act, 2019]-- Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3 & 14--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 247--Tax exemption--Electricity consumption--Petitioners / tax payers were running their industrial units in erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area and after 25th Constitutional Amendment, sought exemption from income tax--Authorities contended that petitioners� manufacturing units were involved in manufacturing of products which reached settled area, therefore, petitioners could not claim blanket exemption from levy of income tax unless their taxable activities relating to sale of products was verified by the authorities-- Validity--This was a valid objection prior to promulgation of 25th Constitutional Amendment, as at the relevant time, persons, who were domiciled in erstwhile FATA, were enjoying immunity from income tax as the same was never extended to erstwhile FATA--Under new dispensation, exemption provided under S. 109A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through Finance Act, 2019, was specific to the person, who was permanent resident of erstwhile FATA and was generating his income from business which was situated at erstwhile FATA or taxable activities which he carried there--High Court declared that demand of authorities of income tax/advance income under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, from petitioners whose registered offices were situated in erstwhile FATA/PATA through their monthly electricity bills was illegal and without lawful authority--High Court further declared that demand of authorities for extra tax and further tax under Sales Tax Act, 1990, from petitioners who had established their manufacturing units at erstwhile FATA/PATA, and were registered with the authorities under S. 14 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and had active tax profiles on relevant portal of FBR was illegal and without lawful authority--High Court directed electricity distribution companies PESCO/TESCO not to demand income tax under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and extra tax/further tax under Sales Tax Act, 1990, from petitioners who had fulfilled said two conditions--Constitutional petition was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register