1997 PLP 1277 (SCMR)
Messrs SAEEDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1277 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Mukhar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SAEEDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1277 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1277 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Mukhar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1277 (SCMR) (Messrs SAEEDULLAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 23‑12‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.23794 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Ss.80‑C, 80‑CC & 80‑D‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Fourth Sched., Federal Legislative List, Part 1, Item No.47 & Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether imposition of income‑tax on the basis of "turn over" alone, without giving an opportunity to tax subsequently adjusted with reference to his actual income, was permissible exercise of legislative power of taxation as enjoyed by Federal Legislative List in pursuance of Fourth Sched., Part 1, Item No.47 of Federal Legislative List.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is engaged in the construction of roads, bridges and dams as a civil contractor. He has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 23‑12‑1996 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.23794 of 1996, filed by the petitioner against the levy of withholding tax at the rate of 3 % under section 80‑C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), and its increase to 5 % under the Finance Act, 1995, dismissing the same on the ground that a Division Bench of the above High Court in the case of Messrs Aisha Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (1995 PTD 493) has held that section 80‑C of the Ordinance was a valid legislation and in Writ Petition No.5501 of 1996 and seven other connected writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of the said High Court has also held that deduction of income‑tax under section 80‑C of the Ordinance shall be at the rate which was prevalent at the time of receipt of payment and not on the dates of the contract under which these payments were made. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has produced the copies of the leave granting orders in a number of petitions for leave to appeal. The main order was passed in Civil Petitions Nos.234, 235, 241, 244, 252, 255, 274, 275 and 279‑L of 1995, wherein leave was granted as under:‑‑ "Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the imposition of income‑tax on the basis of 'turn over' alone, without giving an opportunity to tax subsequently adjusted with reference to his actual income, is a permissible exercise of legislative power of taxation as enjoyed by the Federal Legislature in pursuance of Item No.47 of the Federal Legislative List, Part I, of the Constitution (Fourth Schedule).
2. As the question raised will have bearing upon the validity of sections 80‑C, 80‑CC and 80‑D, Income Tax Ordinance, and need construction of the Constitution notice be issued to the Attorney -General as required by Rule 1, Order XXVII, Civil Procedure Code.
3. During the pendency of the appeals the interim order already made will remain in force.
4. As the appeals involve the finance of the Federal Government these should be heard at an early date." The above order was followed in the subsequent petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in the above petition and pass interim order as above. M.B.A./S‑1098/S Leave granted.