1992 PLP 1798 (MLD)
NAZIMUDDIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Secretary of Excise and Taxation and 3 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1798 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Muhammad Hussain Add Khatri, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIMUDDIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Secretary of Excise and Taxation and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1798 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1798 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Muhammad Hussain Add Khatri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1798 (MLD) (NAZIMUDDIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Secretary of Excise and Taxation and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rehmat Ellahi for Petitioners.
- A.G. Mangi, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R.8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Capital gains tax‑‑ Assessment‑‑‑Petitioners had contended that Assessing Authorities while determining sale value of their property for purpose of capital gains tax, had relied upon arbitrary formula and had not determined value on basis of prescribed criteria‑‑‑Contention of petitioners had been conceded to on behalf of Authorities and it had been submitted on their part that they had no objection to remand case to Assessing Authority for reassessment on basis of prescribed criteria‑‑‑Case was remanded accordingly. Philips Electrical Industries of Pakistan v. Director General/Secretary Excise and Taxation Department PLD 1978 Kar. 393 and Abid and Sons Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer PLD 1985 Kar. 546 ref.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J: ‑‑In this petition, the orders under the Capital Gain Tax Act, 1963, and the Rules made thereunder of the Assessing Authorities assessing the sale value of the property sold by the petitioners in 1983 have been challenged. The property in question is located in Ram Bagh Quarters, Karachi (South) and it was purchased on 18‑11‑1972 by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,70,
000. According to Mr. Rehmat Ellahi learned counsel for the petitioners, the Excise and Taxation Officer, by order, dated 31‑12‑1975, had assessed the gross annual rental value (GARY) of the property at Rs.54,
410. In 1983, the petitioners sold the property to two purchasers for a sum of Rs.4,00,
000. They filed a return under the relevant rules showing the relevant figures. However, the assessing authorities did not/accept the figures given by the petitioners regarding the capital gain accruing to the petitioners and, by the final order, the net sale value of the property for the purpose of Capital Gain Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder was determined at Rs.13,84,988.
2. We have hearned the learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. A.G. Mangi, learned Additional Advocate‑General. The main contention of Mr. Rehmat Ellahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the assessing authorities while determining the sale value for the purpose of Capital Gains Tax Act; have relied upon an arbitrary formula and have not determined the value on the basis of the prescribed criteria. He has relied upon on two judgments of this Court, reported in the case of Philips Electrical Industries of Pakistan v. Director General/Secretary Excise and Taxation Department PLD 1978 Kar. 393 and Abid and Sons Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer PLD 1985 Kar. 546.
3. Mr. A.G. Mangi, learned AA.‑G. concedes to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners and submits that he has no objection to the remand of the case to the assessing authority. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are also of the view that a case for remand has been made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the assessment orders passed by the assessing authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned assessing authority through the Director Excise and Taxation for re‑assessment on the basis of the prescribed criteria. Proceedings on remand will be taken after notice and hearing to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./N‑407/K Case remanded.