Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1507 2026 SLD 1507 = 2026 PLJ 51 = 2026 PTD 577

W.P. No. 2247 of 2025, decided on 8.12.2025.
Presented By: Arbab Muhammad Tahir And Inaam Ameen Minhas, JJ.
M/s. Sardar Taimoor Aslam and Mudassar Abbas, Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Muhammad Asif Jadoon, AAG for
Respondent No. 1. Mr. Osama Shahid, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2. Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk. Date of hearing: 22.10.2025.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES PAKISTAN LIMITED--Petitioner

VERSUS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 177, 177(1), 182(2), 214-A

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 24-A

PLJ 2026 Islamabad 51 (DB) Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)-- ----Ss. 177, 177(1), 182(2) & 214-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Special tax year--Selected for audit--Notices issued--Non-compliance--Imposition of penalty--Expiry of statutory period--Challenge to--Writ petition--Maintainability--Adequate alternate remedy--No reason recorded for extension of time--It transpires that Section 214-A empowered Board, and officers duly authorized, to condone delay in performance of any act or thing for which a period had been prescribed under Ordinance and audit essentially is an act or thing to be done--Thus, petitioner’s argument is devoid of merit and we are of considered view that FBR apparently had power under Section 214-A of Ordinance to grant condonation--It is settled law that statutory power could not be exercised in an unstructured, unguided, or unbridled manner, for such exercise undermines statutory scheme--It would be more appropriate to examine matter through lens of standard in which Board, or any officer exercising power of condonation--Impugned Condonation did not demonstrate existence of any circumstances or facts of case that could lawfully justify exercise of its power of extension--Condonation of time without recording any exceptional circumstances which might justify further extension constitutes an act of highhandedness and amounts to executive overreach-- Impugned Condonation did not even satisfy basic threshold of eligibility for consideration under this test--Audit officer may seek extension of time from Federal Board of Revenue for completion of audit after recording reasons in writing for seeking such extension explaining reasons for his inability to complete audit within stipulated time--In instant matter no notice under Section 122(9) (as it stood at relevant time) had been issued prior to lapse of statutory period meaning thereby proceedings had not been initiated--Board may, in our view, lawfully invoke its discretionary power under Section 214-A to extend time for completing proceedings within reasonable period set--Petition allowed.                   …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register