2002 PLP 3106 (PTD)
Messrs HOME SERVICE SYNDICATE (PVT.) LIMITED through Liquidator Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANY ZONE-I, LAHORE and another
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3106 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J |
| Parties | Messrs HOME SERVICE SYNDICATE (PVT.) LIMITED through Liquidator Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANY ZONE-I, LAHORE and another |
| Primary Law | (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (a) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3106 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), (a) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3106 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3106 (PTD) (Messrs HOME SERVICE SYNDICATE (PVT.) LIMITED through Liquidator Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANY ZONE-I, LAHORE and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
When a citizen places a petition, the agency is legally bound to entertain the same and then to proceed with it legally while keeping in mind its worth
Refusal to entertain a petition by an agency is something exceptional
Bald refusal of even entertaining a petition filed within the periphery of a law is just not permissible and the act of refusal amounts to an arbitrary action which constitutes maladministration as defined by Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983.
S.239
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99
Department refused to entertain the revision petition on the ground that the same pertained to the previous Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was now supplanted by a new Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Contention of the assessee was that the cause of action to the petitioner had arisen in view of the order passed under the previous law and the revision petition had to be filed accordingly and a reference was also made to S.239, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-- Validity
Held, it would be in the fitness of gigs that the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to entertain the revision petition and after hearing the petitioner, he may pass such orders as law required.
Judgment & Decree
When a citizen places a petition, the agency is legally bound to entertain the same and then to proceed with it legally while keeping in mind its worth
Refusal to entertain a petition by an agency is something exceptional
Bald refusal of even entertaining a petition filed within the periphery of a law is just not permissible and the act of refusal amounts to an arbitrary action which constitutes maladministration as defined by Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)
S.239
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l99
Department refused to entertain the revision petition on the ground that the same pertained to the previous Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which was now supplanted by a new Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Contention of the assessee was that the cause of action to the petitioner had arisen in view of the order passed under the previous law and the revision petition had to be filed accordingly and a reference was also made to S.239, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001-- Validity
Held, it would be in the fitness of gigs that the Commissioner of Income-tax was directed to entertain the revision petition and after hearing the petitioner, he may pass such orders as law required. Zia Haider Rizvi for Petitioner. The petitioner had filed a revision petition against an order which had been passed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. His grievance is that the respondent's simply refused to entertain the revision petition perhaps on the ground that it pertained to the previous Ordinance which is now supplanted by a new income Tax Ordinance of 2001.
2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the cause of action to the petitioner had arisen in view of the order passed under the previous law and the revision petition had to be filed accordingly'. A reference was also made to section 239 of the Income Tax Ordinance of 2001 in this connection and it was stated that the revision petition was. entertainable under the new law as well.
3. Refusal to entertain a petition by an agency is something exceptional. When a citizen places a petition, the agency is legally bound to entertain it and, then to proceed with it legally while keeping in mind its worth. A bald refusal of even entertaining a petition filed within the periphery of a law is just not permissible and the act of refusal amounts to an arbitrary action which constitutes "maladministration", as defined by P.O. No. l of 1983.
4. As the allegation is that the respondents had refused to entertain the revision petition, it would be in the fitness of things that the Commissioner of Income-tax, Lahore is directed to entertain the revision petition and after hearing the petitioner, he may pass such orders as law requires. This writ petition with these directions is disposed of. A copy of this order be given Dasti to the petitioner. M. B. A./H-116/L Order accordingly.