P L D 1962 W (PLP)
MAJOR SHAMSUD DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MAJOR SHAMSUD DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1962 W (PLP) (MAJOR SHAMSUD DIN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdur Rehman Tayyab for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Agricultural Income‑tax‑Bona fides of transaction‑Rests on Collector's opinion‑Not a question of judicial discretion --Collector accepting a transaction as having been entered into bona fides‑Order not to take effect retrospectively.
Judgment & Decree
Abdur Rehman Tayyab for Petitioner. This is an application for a review of my order dated 15‑5‑1961. By that order I had declined to interfere in the assess ment of Agricultural Income‑tax made by the Collector, Rahimyar Khan in respect of certain lands which the petitioner had gifted to his wife and daughters. The gift was made a couple of years before the Collector accepted an application under section 6 of the Act and held the transactions to be bona fide. At the same time he directed that it will be in respect of future assessment only that the donor will not be liable. A review is competent only under the provisions of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act : namely, if there is new material which has now become available and which was not then within the knowledge of the party concerned, even after the exercise of due diligence or there is an error or omission patent on the face of the record. Neither of these two reasons have been put for ward before me. What is now urged is that the Collector once he came to the conclusion that the gifts were bona fide and not made with the intention of evading income‑tax it is not competent .for him to lay down that his order will take effect only in future and will not have a retrospective effect. Apart from the reason that a review is not tenable under the provisions of the Board of Revenue Act, the question whether a transaction is made with the intention of evading the tax or not, rests in the opinion of the Collector. It is not one of judicial discretion and cannot be called to question in a Court of Law. It is also the practice that an order only takes effect from the date that it is passed and unless there is a specific provision giving retrospective effect to it, it cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. I would for all these reasons decline to review the order passed by me and dismiss the petition. The petitioner should be informed. S. B. Petition dismissed.