1998 PLP 932 (SCMR)
Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 932 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 932 (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 1998 PLP 932 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 932 (SCMR) (Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yawar Farooqi, Advocate with Special Permission of the Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (In C.P. No.201‑K of 1995).
- Shahenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.207‑K of 1995).
- Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. Nos.210‑K to 215‑K of 1995).
- M. Shabbir Ghaurv. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.223‑K to 227‑K of 1995).
- Sheikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents:
- Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1995.
- Yawar Farooqi, Advocate with Special Permission of the Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (In C.P. No.201-K of 1995).
- Shahenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.207-K of 1995).
- Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. Nos.210-K to 215-K of 1995).
- M. Shabbir Ghaurv. Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.223-K to 227-K of 1995).
- 3. However, Mr. Sheikh Haider, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the official respondents/caveators, has submitted that the above petitions merit dismissal as the assessments pursuant to the impugned notices have already been finalised and recoveries have already been made and the parties have filed appeals etc. against the above assessments.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the common judgment dated 7‑2‑1995 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in Constitution Petition NO.D‑1695 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 26(a), 65, 66‑A, First & F Fourth Scheds.‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Insurance Companies‑‑‑Notices issued to such companies under Ss. 65 & 66‑A, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for re‑opening of assessment already finalised‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal having already been granted against the judgment of High Court which was also subject‑matter of petitions under consideration, in order to follow rule of consistency, leave was also granted to petitioners to consider, inter alia, whether High Court had correctly interpreted provisions of S. 26(a), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 alongwith provisions relating to tax rate structure of First Sched. applicable to dividend income as also whether notice issued under S. 65(2), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was based on definite information as contemplated under law. '
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
By this common order we intend to dispose of the above petitions which are directed against a common judgment dated 7-2-1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No.D-1695 of 1993 and the other connected Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners against the notices issued by the official respondents under sections 65 and 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for reopening the assessments already finalised on the ground that the dividend income received by the petitioners which are Insurance Companies was not treated in terms of section 26-A read with the First Schedule, dismissing the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention that this Court has already granted leave in Civil Petitions Nos.98-K to 105-K, 138-K to .142-K of 1995 and 146-K to 150-K of 1995 by an order dated 5-4-1995 to consider inter alia the following question:-- "Whether the learned Judges of the Sindh High Court at Karachi correctly interpreted the provisions of section 26(a) read with the provisions relating to Tax Rate Structure of the First Schedule applicable to dividend income as also whether notice issued under section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was based on 'definite information' as contemplated under the law?" In the aforesaid petitions it was also ordered that the appeals shall be heard on the exiting record within three months from the date of the order. The above leave granting order was followed in Civil- Petitions Nos.156-K to 159-K of 1985, 170-K, 173-K to 176-K of 1995 inasmuch as leave was granted by an order dated 8-5-1995.
3. However, Mr. Sheikh Haider, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the official respondents/caveators, has submitted that the above petitions merit dismissal as the assessments pursuant to the impugned notices have already been finalised and recoveries have already been made and the parties have filed appeals etc. against the above assessments.
4. We have noticed that in the above first leave granting order, in Civil Petitions Nos.103-K, 104-K and 105-K of 1995, stay order was not granted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that in the said cases, the assessments were finalised.
5. Since earlier this Court has already granted leave against the judgment of the High Court which is also the subject-matter of the present petitions, in order to follow the rule of consistence, we are inclined to grant leave in the present cases to consider inter alia the question on which earlier leave has been granted. However, we are not inclined to grant any stay order. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The appeals arising from the above petitions may also be fixed alongwith the appeals arising out of the aforesaid petitions in which earlier leave was granted in terms of the order dated 5-4-1995 i.e. within three months of the above order. . A.A./G-174/S Leave granted.