Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122(5A), 137, 137(2), 138 , 140

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A, 14

Law: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972

Section: 3

Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (XLIX of 2001)-- ----Ss. 122(5A), 137, 137(2), 138 & 140--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 10-A & 14--Land Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972), S. 3--Demand for recovery of tax--Issuance of notice--Assessment order--Appeal--Allowed--ICA--Allowed--Immediate recovery was sought--Conduct of commissioner--Violation of--Challenge to--Fair trial--Right to dignity--Conduct of Commissioner in present case, therefore, falls short of the statutory requirement of Section 140 of the Ordinance--Tax recovery was not meant to be a ‘grab and go’ process--Even coercive recovery measures must follow a proper and fair procedure--Recovery must be preceded by notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply, we considered it necessary to clarify that Section 140 of Ordinance operates as an independent recovery mechanism--Where recovery was sought from third parties under Section 140 of Ordinance, requirement of notice and setting of a future date are built into provision itself--It did not require prior invocation of Section 138(1) of Ordinance, which governs direct recovery from taxpayer. Hence, specific requirement for Section 140 of Ordinance in notice with a date set when recovery would be effected--Section 140 of Ordinance did not permit immediate coercive recovery in absence of a date set in notice--When read in its proper context, Section 140 of Ordinance expressly provides that party holding money on behalf of taxpayer must be afforded a notice with a due date to discharge its liability--Notices issued Section 140 of Ordinance in both Petitions seek immediate recovery, thereby blatantly violating requirements of Section 140 of Ordinance, which was illegal--Appeals dismissed.                                                                       [Pp. 633 & 634] A, B & C As per…