Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 182, 209

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----Ss. 182 & 209---Large Taxpayers' Office---Jurisdiction, determination of--- Petitioner, being Chief Executive Officer of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO), filed constitutional petition calling into question order passed under S. 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') by the Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers Office, Faisalabad (respondent No.3) whereby he had been awarded a penalty in his personal capacity i.e. Chief Executive Officer of FESCO ('the Impugned Order')---Submission of the petitioner was that in view of Federal Board of Revenues (FBR) own notification FESCO fell under the jurisdiction of LTO, Multan---Validity---The fact that the automated system of the FRR did not recognize and entertain the appeal of the petitioner was enough to hold the (present) constitutional petition maintainable and the petitioner could not be left remediless---Even otherwise, the serious question of jurisdiction was involved as to the authority and powers to issue the Show-Cause Notice-inquestion (dated 16.06.2023) and the impugned order passed on the basis thereon, therefore, the petitioner had rightfully invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Record (including the documents appended by both sides) clearly led to an ineluctable conclusion that the petitioner was caught within the mischiefs of confusion of jurisdiction of the relevant LTOs created by FBR without there being any default, malice or wrong doing attributable to the petitioner--- During the pendency of the present petition, FESCO also approached FBR by means of a representation under the provisions contained in the Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007, in order to lay its grievance qua the overlapping and conflicting claims of jurisdictions by two offices of FBR, however, no definite findings were handed down owing to the pendency of the present petition---The reliance of the respondents Nos. 3 and 5 on a notification/circular dated 03.10.2019 was apparently in contradiction with subsequent circulars/orders dated 12.10.2020 (relied upon by the petitioner) and dated 01.07.2021 (relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.4)---Considering the petitioner's unrefuted claim that no loss or evasion of revenue was involved in the case, which claim was also substantiated from the Show-Cause Notice and impugned order, the treatment meted out to the petitioner was untenable under the law---However, in order to streamline the question of jurisdiction of the relevant RTOs qua FESCO and for further verification qua possibility of any loss or evasion of the revenue, the intervention and a definite finding by the FBR was inevitable---High Court setaside the impugned order, and the matter (present petition) was transmitted to the Chairman FBR as a representation under the provisions contained in Federal Board of Revenue Act, 2007, who shall hear the petitioner as well as concerned LTOs and pass a speaking order for final determination of the controversy qua the jurisdiction in clear terms---Constitutional petition, filed by Chief Executive Officer of Faisalabad Electric Supply Company, was allowed accordingly.