1985 PLP 2990 (CLC)
Mian IQBAL KHALID, ADVOCATE and others — Petitioners Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2990 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza, J |
| Parties | Mian IQBAL KHALID, ADVOCATE and others — Petitioners Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2990 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2990 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2990 (CLC) (Mian IQBAL KHALID, ADVOCATE and others — Petitioners Versus THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Farani Barrister-at-Law for Petitioners.
- Rashid Aziz, A.-G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 3-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Gains-tax, assessment of--Remedies available against--Remedies of appeal and revision were available to petitioners in case they had grievances against assessment order passed by Excise and Taxation Officer--Petitioners did not file appeal against assessment order of capital gains-tax with apprehension that in case of filing appeal they would have to pay assessed amount--Petitioners already had paid certain amount of such tax--Undertaking given on behalf of Tax Authority that in case of appeal by petitioners, Department would not recover balance amount from petitioner pending final decision of appeal--Petitioners might avail remedy of appeal in circumstances--Writ disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
It is not denied that the petitioners have a remedy of appeal and revision against the impugned order passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer. Learned counsel, however, submits that the remedy of appeal is not adequate in so far as in case the petitioners file appeal, they will have to pay the amount of gains-tax assessed' in the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioners have already deposited Rs.70,000 towards the gain-tax and the total liability assessed by the E.T.O. comes to Rs.1,04,000.
2. I have sent for the Advocate-General, who has appeared. He undertakes that if the petitioners file appeal, the department will not recover the balance amount of Rs.34,000 from the petitioners pending the final decision of the appeal.
3. In these circumstances petitioners may avail the remedy of appeal in the first instance which shall be disposed of as early as possible. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. H.B.T. Order accordingly.