Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 1497 2009 SLD 1497 (2009) 100 TAX 213 2010 PTCL 671 2009 PTD 1507

Writ Petitions Nos. 4630, 4398, 4631, 4673, 4810, 4811, 5073, 5192, 5216, 5537, 5583, 5752, 5825, 3667, 4022, 4200 and 4673 of 208, decision dated: 14-07-2009, hearing DATE : 24-04-2009
IRFAN QADIR, J

MOHSIN RAZA

VS

CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others

Law:

Section: 177

[Constitution of Pakistan (1973)]........Art. 199---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 177---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Audit---Selection of petitioners' cases for audit with specific reference to S.177(4), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Roving inquiries and fishing expeditions and those too in violation of the statutory provisions not only cause the subject of such inquiry to become an "aggrieved person" but such a course of action was also violative of due process of law thereby entitling the aggrieved person not only to claim damages in a court of civil jurisdiction but also through invocation of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioners had called in question the letters whereby their income tax affairs had been selected for audit on the ground that said letters of the department were violative of statutory provision viz. S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Held: Question involved in the constitutional petitions was purely a legal question falling within the ambit of Art.199 of the Constitution and thus such constitutional petitions were maintainable. Assistant Collector of Customs v. Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 rel. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--S. 177---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 25---Constitutional petition---Audit---Selection of cases for audit by Commissioner---Law and procedure analysed---Criteria, an essential pre-requisite---Commissioner of Income Tax could not select a case for audit, unless criteria provided had been duly fulfilled as laid down in terms of S.177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Federal Board of Revenue because Commissioner could only select cases for audit in addition to selection for Audit referred to in S.177(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but he could not select cases for audit in substitution or in isolation thereof---Selection of cases in violation of such procedure was illegal---Prior notice to the assessee whose case was selected for audit, was of immense significance and absence thereof in such cases was sufficient to render the letters to the assesses by the department, about selection of cases for audit, to be devoid of any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492