2009 PLP 20 (PTD)
Messrs HONDA FORT PVT. LTD. through Director Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and another
| Citation | 2009 PLP 20 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Farooq Saeed, J |
| Parties | Messrs HONDA FORT PVT. LTD. through Director Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and another |
| Primary Law | (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 20 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (c) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 20 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Khawaja Farooq Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 20 (PTD) (Messrs HONDA FORT PVT. LTD. through Director Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zulifqar Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 120(1)(A) [as inserted in 2005]
Provision of S. 120(1)(A) having been inserted in 2005, cannot be considered as retrospective.
S. 177(7)-Audit
Provision of S.177(7), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 deprives the department from issuance of notices in respect of the earlier years after having proceedings in respect of the subsequent year.
S. 177
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Initiation of the proceedings against notice under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not enough for invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED.
This order will dispose of W.Ps. No.4114 and 4115 of 2008 as common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions.
2. Through this writ petition indulgence of this Court is sought for declaring the notices under section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to be as unlawful and against the powers of the income tax authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner detailed the facts of the case by, inter alia, mentioning that notices under section 122(5) were issued earlier in respect of the one year. However, subsequently, through another notice, tax years, 2005, 2004 and 2003 were also included showing the intention that the department wants to audit the assessment finalized under section 120 of the said Act.
4. For the years, 2003 and 2004 since the provision in terms of section 120(1)(A) was inserted later in 2005, it cannot be considered as retrospective. Further the provision of section 177(7) deprives the department from issuance of notices in respect of the earlier years after having proceedings in respect of the subsequent year. 4-A. This Court would not like to prejudice the working of the subordinate authorities while giving comments on the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since this Court in many others similar writ petitions have considered, the initiation of the proceedings against notices under section 177 to be as not enough for invocation of a writ jurisdiction at the stage of the said proceedings and have declined to interfere, obviously no remarks on merits are required. In fact, the issue "as to whether a writ jurisdiction should be exercised on issuance of notice under section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001", has ultimately been decided by this Court through I.C.A. No.125 of 2007 on 10-9-2008, in the case of "Kunjah Textile Mills". In view whereof, the present writ petition is premature. This Court after holding that being the repository this Court may examine the issue in its referable jurisdiction, it should not interfere in the proceedings initiated on the basis of section 177.
5. The result is obvious. The present writ petitions are considered as premature and, therefore, interference is declined. M.B.A./H-24/L Petitions dismissed.