2024 PLP 1095 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR Versus Messrs AL KHYBER TEA AND FOOD and 2 others
| Citation | 2024 PLP 1095 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor and Syed Arshad Ali, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR Versus Messrs AL KHYBER TEA AND FOOD and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 1095 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 1095 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor and Syed Arshad Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 1095 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR Versus Messrs AL KHYBER TEA AND FOOD and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qaisar Abbas Bangash for Petitioner.
- Attiq-ur-Rehman and Chaudhary Naeem ul Haq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.148 & 170(4)
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 9 & 10
Tax to be deducted on imported raw material
"Manufacturer"
Scope
Contention of the Department was that the taxpayer fell under the definition of "manufacture" while the taxpayer / firm submitted that it was simply involved in packing of imported tea/spices in retail packing through human resources, which could not be termed as manufacturing process
Refund applications of the taxpayer before the Department could not be entertained because the Department filed references before the High Court, whereas the taxpayer filed complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman ('the Ombudsman')
Ombudsman passed recommendations to dispose of refund applications after completing verification process
Department invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court after its representation against Ombudsman's recommendations was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (President)
Record revealed that the High Court had now answered all the References previously filed by the petitioner / department in negative by holding that the issue of declaring the respondent / taxpayer as "manufacturer" had been adjudicated upon in favour of respondent /taxpayer
Even otherwise , no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error was noticed in the impugned recommendation of the Ombudsman followed by the order of the Appellate Authority
No case for interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction was made out
Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR, J.
Through the instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court for declaring the order dated 27.01.2020 of Federal Tax Ombudsman "FTO" and judgment and order dated 07.10.2020 of the Hon'ble President of Pakistan "Appellate Authority" to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Succinctly narrated facts are that respondent No.01 filed Income Tax Returns for the years, 2014 to 2018 in the respective financial years and thereafter, sought refunds of Tax deducted on raw material under section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 "the Ordinance" by filing applications. The applications, however, could not be entertained for the reasons that the petitioner-department had filed references before this Court with the questions of law whether under the facts and circumstances, the taxpayer- respondent No.01 falls under the definition of "manufacturer" or "commercial importer", which were pending adjudication when the later approached the FTO by filing complaints on 20.12.2019 for issuance of refund as well as compensation under section 171 of the Ordinance.
3. The petitioner contested the complaints and claimed before the FTO that petitioner-firm is simply involved in packing of imported tea and spices in retail packing through human resources, which cannot be termed as manufacturing process.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned FTO disposed of the complaints with recommendations dated 27.01.2020 to FBR; "direct the Commissioner IR, Peshawar Zone to complete the verification process and dispose of complainant's refund applications for the Tax Years 2014, 2016 to 2018 after providing him opportunity of hearing as per law and report compliance within 45 days". As against that, the petitioner filed representation under section 14 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 read with section 32 of the FTO Ordinance, 2000 before the Appellate Authority; but, the same was rejected by way of impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2020; hence, the instant writ petition.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-company provided a copy of consolidated judgment of this Court dated 07.11.2022 rendered in Tax References Nos. 16, 10, 11 and 12-P of 2019 whereby all the references have been answered in negative by holding that the issue of declaring the respondent-company as "manufacturer" has already been adjudicated upon and decided in its favour. Even otherwise, the impugned recommendation of the FTO followed by order of the Appellate Authority qua disposal of refund applications of the respondents within 60 days in terms of Section 170(4) of the Ordinance are not suffering from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error which could be interfered with by this Court under its Constitutional Jurisdiction. Hence, the instant writ petition stands dismissed being meritless. MQ/170/P Petition dismissed.