1997 PLP 61 (PTD)
Messrs AYUB ICE FACTORY, SHEIKHUPURA Versus REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE and 4 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP 61 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ahmad Saeed Awan, J |
| Parties | Messrs AYUB ICE FACTORY, SHEIKHUPURA Versus REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 61 (PTD)?
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 61 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ahmad Saeed Awan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 61 (PTD) (Messrs AYUB ICE FACTORY, SHEIKHUPURA Versus REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REGION, LAHORE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fayyaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 136, 59, 61, 62 & 63
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- C.B.R. Circular No. 9 of 1994, dated 11-7-1994
Self-Assessment Scheme for 1994-95, para. 4(i) & (ii)
Constitutional petition
Non-availing of alternate remedy
Maintainability of petition
Assessee filing return in terms of para. 4(i) of Self-Assessment Scheme, 1994-95
Department selecting his case for audit under para. 4(ii) of the Scheme and issuing notices under Ss.61 & 62 of the Ordinance which remained uncomplied with resulting in assessment against assessee under S.63 of the Ordinance-- Assessee having failed in revision before Departmental forum, straightaway invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court raising certain questions and praying that assessment be declared without lawful authority if the answers were found in the negative
Held, Income Tax Ordinance itself being a complete Code, the manner in which the answer to the questions had been sought by petitioner in Constitutional petition was unwarranted and misconceived
Procedure for referring a question of law to the High Court has been provided in S.136 of the Income Tax Ordinance which was ignored by the assessee (petitioner)
Petition was, thus, dismissed being not maintainable and devoid of merits. Fayyaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
2. Briefly facts of the case are that the petitioner allegedly filed his return of income for the year 1994-95 in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in Self-Assessment Scheme announced by the C.B.R. vide Circular No. 9 of 1994, dated 11-7-1994.
3. The case was set apart for audit under para. 4(II) of the Self Assessment Scheme for 1994-95 by the respondent No.l, respondent No.3 framed the assessment under section 63 of the Ordinance though notices issued under sections 61, 58(1) and section 62 were properly served upon the petitioner but remained uncomplied with; the respondent No.2 confirmed the 'order passed by the respondent No.3 in revision filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the Ordinance except allowing maltage allowance at 20 per cent; hence this petition.
4. The questions raised in the petition for answer are as under:
"(1) Whether the respondents after feeding the case to computer for balloting for its selection under para. 4(1) of C.B.R.'s Circular No.9 of 1994, dated. 11-7-1994 could select the case under para. 4(II) of the same circular? (2) Whether the respondents after declaring that the case of the petitioner was qualifying for randum ballot and not falling outside the scope of the Self-Assessment Scheme could disqualify it out of the Self-Assessment Scheme? (3) Whether the respondents could contradict their own certificate given at the time of randum ballot? (4) Whether the initiation by the Commissioner of Income Tax means the initiation without being heard the petitioner? (5) Whether the respondent No. l could select the case under para. 4(II) of the said circle without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard?"
5. The questions raised for answers by the Court in the writ petition; I neither arise out of the order of respondent No.3 nor of respondent No.2; admittedly the assessment was made under section 63; in spite of repeated issuance of notices under sections 61 and 62 of the Ordinance and appearance of learned A.R. for the petitioner; remained uncomplied with.
6. The manner, answers to questions raised in the petition; have been sought by the petitioner is unwarranted and misconceived; as the Income Tax Ordinance itself is a complete Code and procedure for referring a question of law to the High Court has been provided under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance. The writ petition even otherwise being devoid of merits is not maintainable; hence is dismissed in limine. MBA./A-60/L Petition dismissed.