2022 PLP 727 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, KARACHI Versus PACKAGES LIMITED
| Citation | 2022 PLP 727 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, KARACHI Versus PACKAGES LIMITED |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 727 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 727 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 727 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTO, KARACHI Versus PACKAGES LIMITED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Mir Halepota, Advocate Supreme Court, Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record and Abdul Wahid, Additional Commissioner for Petitioner.
- Ejaz Ahmed Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court and K. A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 05.11.2020 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in I.T.R.A. No. 67 of 2015)
S. 66A
Show cause notice issued under S. 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Barred by time
Frivolous litigation by tax Department
Before the High Court the Department had relied upon S. 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 ('the 1979 Ordinance') and not S. 66
Under the said S. 66A, a notice could only be issued within a period of four years by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner of income tax from the date of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
In the present case the Deputy Commissioner passed his order on 16th March 1998
Subject show cause notice dated 23rd May 2011 was issued more than thirteen years after the said order and as such was time-barred as it was well beyond the prescribed period of four years
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs in the sum of twenty thousand rupees, and leave was refused with the observations that the Income Tax Department, which was now the Federal Board of Revenue, must act fairly in dealing with taxpayers and to abide by the law governing it; if any benefit accrued to taxpayers under the law, it must not be withheld and the assessee's and its own time and resources should not be needlessly wasted, and the present frivolous litigation also wasted the time of the Tribunal, the High Court and of the Supreme Court; time which would have been better spent in resolving legitimate disputes.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, J. This petition for leave to appeal assails the order dated 5 November 2020 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. On the last date of haring, we had directed the petitioner to file the show cause notice, through which the whole process was re-initiated and show cause notice dated 23 May 2011 has been filed through CMA No.23-K/2022, which shows that it was issued 'under section 66A read with section 66 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for the assessment year 97-98...'. The two questions framed by the Department for consideration of the High Court in the Income Tax Reference were as under: i. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to hold that order under section 66-A of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was barred by time limit? ii. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified to decide the appeal against the department in the context of case law cited as 2008 PTD 1316?
2. The Department before the High Court had relied upon section 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance (and not section 66). Under the said section 66-A, a notice can only be issued within a period of four years by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax from the date of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, we enquired when was the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and were told that it was passed on 16 March 1998 (filed with CMA No. 25-K/2022). The said show cause notice dated 23 May 2011 was issued more than thirteen years after the said order and as such was time-barred as it was well beyond the prescribed period of four years. Reference was then made to a notice dated 12 June 2013. Leaving aside the relevancy of this notice we note that it too was issued after four years. The Department could not have initiated action under the said section 66-A after four years. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined and, consequently, this petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of twenty thousand rupees.
3. We may observe that the Income Tax Department, which is now the Federal Board of Revenue, must act fairly in dealing with taxpayers and to abide by the law governing it. If any benefit accrues to taxpayers under the law, it must not be withheld and the assessee's and its own time and resources should not be needlessly wasted. This frivolous litigation also wasted the time of the Tribunal, the High Court and of this Court; time which would have been better spent in resolving legitimate disputes. MWA/C-1/SC Petition dismissed.