2008 PLP 543 (SCMR)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI — Appellant Versus Messrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 543 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI — Appellant Versus Messrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 543 (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 2008 PLP 543 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Mian Shakirullah Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 543 (SCMR) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI — Appellant Versus Messrs OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM PAKISTAN LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 3. When we inquired from them whether the counsel for the department had consented for the disposal of appeals and now they can agitate the same points. It was explained by them as a question of law is involved, therefore, the consent given by the department counsel will be meaningless under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 7-2-2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in I.T.As. Nos.631-637 of 1991).
S. 163(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185
Avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion
Counsel for department/appellant had contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same court, without taking into consideration the effect of subsection (2) of S.163 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, whereas points involved in both the cases were distinct from each other
Prima facie, distinction existed in both the cases and the High Court could have disposed of those cases independently, taking into consideration the effect of S.163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 as well as other provisions of law
Appeals were allowed, impugned judgment was set aside and cases were remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeals afresh, expeditiously. Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.-G. on Court notice.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
These appeals by leave of the Court have been filed against the judgment dated 7th February, 2002 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel for appellant, learned Deputy Attorney-General who appeared on Court notice and the Member Tax, Central Board of Revenues contended that the High Court had pronounced the judgment on the basis of an earlier judgment of the same High Court, dated 24th February, 1999 passed in I.T.A. No.192 of 1997 without taking into consideration the effect of subsection (2) of section 163 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. According to them the points involved in both the cases are distinct from each other.
3. When we inquired from them whether the counsel for the department had consented for the disposal of appeals and now they can agitate the same points. It was explained by them as a question of law is involved, therefore, the consent given by the department counsel will be meaningless under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is a distinction in both the cases and learned High Court may have disposed of these cases independently, taking into consideration the effect of section 163(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance as- well as other provisions B of law i.e. section. 241 read with Rule 20 of the Income Tax Rules, 1982.
5. Thus for the foregoing reasons appeals are allowed, impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2002 is set aside and cases are remanded to the High Court for disposal of appeals afresh, expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of three months keeping in view the above observation. H.B.T./C-4/SC Appeal allowed.