Imposition concurrently

No controversy existed in the present case with regard to application and scope of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the period up to 30-6-2008 i.e. the date when S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was omitted vide Finance Act, 2008

Prior to insertion of "explanation", mere enlargement or elaboration of definition of expression 'turnover' in subsection (3) of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 did not alter the situation earlier applicable as interpreted by the Courts

After re-enactment and prior to insertion of "explanation", the provisions of law clearly warranted imposition of higher of minimum tax or final taxes as was offered for tax by the taxpayer in its declarations

At the time, when Assessing Officer imposed final tax and minimum tax concurrently, same was clearly not lawful

Since, through insertion of 'explanation', a new restrictive definition of 'tax paid or payable' had been provided by the legislature which had altered and clearly enlarged the scope of substantive part of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and that the legislature had not expressly made it retrospective, said "explanation" could not be considered to be applicable on retrospective basis

Orders of the authorities below were vacated and it was held by the Appellate Tribunal that minimum tax and final taxes could not be concurrently imposed

Assessing authority clearly erred in imposing final tax and minimum tax concurrently

Only the higher of two amounts was payable under the law.