Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1018 2026 SLD 1018 = 2026 PTD 458 = 2025 LHC 6537 = (2026) 133 TAX 502
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Writ Petition No.5000 of 2022, decided on 5th November, 2025.
Presented By: Asim Hafeez and Abid Hussain Chattha, JJ
Zahid Imran Gondal and Muhammad Junaid for Petitioner. Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan. Malik Muhammad Shahzad Awan for
Respondents.

Messrs FAZAL PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED

VS

. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122(9), 148, 159, 177, 177(6), 214C, 122(9), 111

  JUDGMENT/ORDER/FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS     Summary ; This judgment by the Lahore High Court (Multan Bench), authored by Asim Hafeez and Abid Hussain Chattha, JJ, clarifies the timeline for tax audits triggered by exemption certificates and the taxpayer's obligation to cooperate with the process. The Dispute Fazal Paper Mills (Pvt.) Limited challenged a tax audit notice issued on September 17, 2021, for Tax Year 2016. Petitioner's Argument: Under Clause 72B (Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance), an audit triggered by an exemption certificate must be completed within the same financial year the certificate was issued (i.e., by June 30, 2017). They argued that any proceedings after that date were illegal. Department's Argument: The audit was delayed because the taxpayer failed to provide documents on time and did not respond to the audit report's findings (concerns). Key Legal Findings 1. Interpretation of "During the Financial Year" The Court analyzed Clause 72B. It ruled that the requirement to conduct an audit "during the financial year" is intended to help the Commissioner determine tax liability before issuing a new certificate for the following year. The Ruling: If a taxpayer isn't seeking a certificate for the next year, they cannot use this clause as a "statute of limitations" to escape an audit. The audit does not automatically expire on June 30 if it remains pending due to the taxpayer's actions. 2. Taxpayer’s Non-Cooperation The record showed the department issued multiple notices starting in early 2017. The Petitioner provided partial records exactly on the last day of the financial year (June 30, 2017) and more records a month later. The Ruling: The completion of the audit "lingered" because the taxpayer failed to facilitate the process or raise specific objections to the audit findings when invited to do so under Section 177(6). 3. Jurisdictional Validity The Court found no "jurisdictional defect" in the notice issued under Section 122(9) (Amendment of Assessment). Since the audit process was technically concluded (as the taxpayer raised no valid…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register