Reconciliation

2023 PTD 541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.161Income Tax Rules, 2002, R.44(4)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionTax dueRecoveryReconciliationDispute was with regard to notice of recovery of tax due issued under S.161 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001Validity

Rational in S. 161 (1B) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was that a tax liable to be adjusted against tax due, could not be recovered when tax due had already been paid

Recovery of any amount, thereafter, not adjustable against tax due for relevant period was to be refunded and whole exercise for recovery would be futile, as tax collected would not become part of National Exchequer rather would burden it with an expense which could have been expended for recovery of tax due

Pursuit of creating such demands by tax administrators, to meet budgetary targets, not only wasted resource and revenue but burdened judicial hierarchy up till Supreme Court

There must, at least initially, be some reason or information available with Commissioner for him to conclude that there was, or could have been, a failure to deduct tax

All tax authorities for the purpose of S.161 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were to identify payments, whether singly or in lump sum (i.e.) as part of a broader class or category of such payments

Triggering event for issuance of Notice was a failure to either collect tax or deduct it

Commissioner was to point out a payment to cast burden wholly or solely on the taxpayer

After issuance of Notice, the first thing needed to be verified was, whether tax, required to be deducted or collected, of a person had been paid or not

If tax liability for relevant tax year was found paid/discharged, the Commissioner could proceed only to impose default surcharge and penalty

Reconciliation, under R. 44(4) of Income Tax Rules, 2002, could not be called without first ensuring filing of statements under the rule

High Court set aside order in question as the same was passed by authorities ignoring judgments passed by Superior Courts

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

1982 SCMR 695 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382 t Reconciliation-Sentence-Widow of deceased, deceased's mother and maternal uncle (complainant) identified by Chairman, Union Council appearing before Supreme Court, filing signed/thumb-marked statement to support fact of complainant having compromised matter and received Rupees, seventy thousands from accused appellant's father in satisfaction and as compensation-Compromise also stated to be voluntary and deceased's relatives having forgiven appellant-State counsel not opposing giving of benefit of S. 382-B to appellant Lesser, sentence under S. 302, Penal Code- 1860, held, sufficient in circumstances of case-Sentence of death reduced to one of imprisonment for life but sentence of fine in terms awarded by trial Court maintained.-[Sentence].

1978 SCMR 130 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 10(3)-Reconciliation-Petitioner's case defended at all stage by his father-Family Court trying to effect conciliation between parties by questioning petitioner's father on petitioner's behalf-Petitioner not having shown interest in suit against him fact of his father being questioned on his behalf at pre-trial stage, held, at highest an irregularity not affecting outcome of suit and High Court could not interfere with Family Court's judgment on such ground in its limited constitutional jurisdiction Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.- 199.[ Writ].