Reference

Authorities assailed judgment passed by Single Member Bench on the plea of lack of jurisdiction as the matter was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Rupees five million

Validity

Only limitation imposed under S. 194-C (3) and (4) of Customs Act, 1969 is that the Benches consisting of Single Member can only hear class of cases as Federal Government may by order in writing specify

No such notification or order in writing for delegating authorities issued by Federal Government, notifying cases to be assigned to a Single Member Bench was available on record nor same was produced by respondents or rebutted by way of filing counter affidavit

Chairman himself or any other member of Customs Appellate Tribunal was authorized under S. 194-C (4) of Customs Act, 1969 to dispose of case, sitting singly, where value of the case related to duty, tax and fine not exceeding five million Rupees or where goods were confiscated without option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under S.181 of Customs Act, 1969

High Court set aside judgment passed by Single Member Bench of Customs Appellate Tribunal, as the same was coram non judice

High Court remanded the matter to Customs Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh on appeal

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Commissioner Appeals corrected his earlier order wherein he treated income from sale of plot as capital gain and taxable under S. 37 (3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; resultantly mistake committed by the authorities was rectified

Order passed by Commissioner Appeals was maintained by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Validity

Provision of S. 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 uses the broader expression “mistake apparent from the record”

Such choice of wording reflects the Legislative intent to permit rectification of any mistake whether clerical, arithmetical, legal, or factual provided the mistake is apparent from the record

Power to rectify is not confined to narrowly defined categories but extends to any mistakes evident on the face of the record

Any limitation inferred through restrictive interpretation such as confining the scope of S. 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to only clerical or arithmetical mistakes would amount to reading into the statute what is not stated

Commissioner Appeals or the Appellate Tribunal were legally empowered to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, including legal or factual errors, while exercising authority under S. 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Immovable property under S. 37 (5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 has expressly been excluded from “capital assets”

As immovable property did not fall in the definition of capital gain therefore same was not liable to tax under S. 37 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but was taxable under S. 18 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Earlier order of the Commissioner was erroneous and the result of applying wrong Section of law

This was a mistake discoverable on perusal of the record and same did not require any further analysis, interference or further inquiry and investigation

Commissioner Appeals had rightly invoked his jurisdiction under S. 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and had lawful authority for such purpose

High Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by Commissioner Appeals and Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Applicant / taxpayer was aggrieved of issuance of show-cause notice by authorities alleging misclassification and evasion / short-payment of sales tax on the basis of analysis of data / desk audit

Validity

Audit must be conducted under S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

'Desk audit' or mere 'analysis of data' is not a substitute for a proper audit under law

Such analysis may generate information that can lead to a proper audit under S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 but it cannot itself be the basis for imposition of tax liability

No notice for audit under S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with STGO No. 3/2004 was ever issued to applicant / taxpayer

Commissioner Inland Revenue, under S. 14 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and R.5(3) read with R. 7 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006, could have initiated proceedings to alter registration status of applicant / taxpayer

Entire proceedings, from their very inception were without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, void and of no legal effect, as no such notice or proceedings were ever undertaken by authorities

High Court answered the reference in positive and the orders passed by the fora below were set aside, along with all consequential proceedings

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Applicant / company was withholding agent and was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by Authorities for non-deducting of sale tax on the services

Plea raised by applicant / company was that taxable services were provided in other province and tax could not be charged only for the reason that head office was registered in the Province of Punjab

Validity

Mere residency of a company in Punjab or its classification as a prescribed withholding agent does not, by itself, create a substantive tax liability under Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012

Liability to sales tax under Ss. 11, 24 & 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 was fastened exclusively upon a registered person providing taxable services

Punjab Revenue Authority was competent to initiate withholding tax proceedings on the basis of undisputed audited accounts showing composite amounts paid for services; final determination of withholding tax liability could not be made on aggregated figures alone

Each individual transaction was to be reconciled and examined to ascertain whether it had constituted a taxable service, the applicable rate of tax, and the obligation to deduct and deposit tax

Burden was upon the withholding agent to explain nature of transactions and justify non-deduction of tax

Once documentary evidence was produced before Appellate Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, to scrutinize and reconcile each transaction and determine taxability accordingly

Appellate Tribunal's failure to undertake such exercise amounted to non-application of judicial mind, warranting annulment of its order and remand of the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law

High Court declared that the show cause notice was issued without any legal foundation and Appellate Tribunal had erred in upholding initiation of proceedings under S. 52 of Punjab Sales Tax on Services Act, 2012 against applicant / company, despite absence of any statutory authority permitting such proceedings against a service recipient

Appellate Tribunal wrongly placed reliance on Withholding Rules, 2015, as subordinate legislation could not enlarge or create a substantive tax liability not contemplated by the parent statute

High Court set aside order passed by Appellate Tribunal as well as Order in-Original and show cause notice, as the Appellate Tribunal fell in error by sustaining proceedings and by affirming jurisdiction of Punjab Revenue Authority against applicant / company

Reference was allowed in circumstances.

If Appellate Tribunal believed that no substantial material was provided by applicant / taxpayer, then at the same time it was also incumbent upon the Tribunal to confront respondent / Revenue Board Authorities as to from where they had gathered information and made out a case without proper invoices issued by applicant / taxpayer

Various invoices were placed on record by applicant / taxpayer who had discharged the burden as to providing two separate and distinct services

Invoices so produced clearly depicted that there were separate and distinct services to various clients and had charged sales tax accordingly

Applicant / taxpayer was offering / renting the space, which at times also included certain support services

Renting of space remained a separate and distinct service, and mere issuance of a common invoice did not ipso facto make such services wholly taxable

Neither the definition nor the category under which a person was registered could create liability of tax as it was the actual service so rendered which was taxable

High Court set aside orders of the forums below and decided questions in favour of applicant / taxpayer

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Dispute was with regard to issuance of show-cause notice by authorities to applicant / importer for adding payment of technical/royalty fee to its supplier in transactional value of imported goods

Show-cause notice in question was issued during the pendency of Special Customs Reference Application (SCRA) already pending before High Court on similar question wherein authorities were restrained to pass any final order in the proceedings pending before them

Validity

Based on the expressions employed in agreements in question, neither it was established that royalty and license fees in question relating to the goods valued was paid to the buyer either directly or indirectly, nor it was a condition of sale of goods valued

Royalty fee in question was not liable to be added to customs value determined in terms of S. 25(1) read with Ss. 25(d) & 25(e) of Customs Act, 1969

Show-cause notice in question for subsequent imports was based squarely on the same issue, which was before High Court by way of SCRA against the orders passed by Custom Appellate Tribunal, in favour of applicants / importers and authorities still intended to pass similar orders, disregarding the Tribunal's order in question

Resort to statutory remedies below the Customs Appellate Tribunal level were a mere formality, as the Tribunal's order itself was before High Court in SCRA and had not been decided

High Court declined to dismiss the Reference Application as not maintainable

High Court quashed show-cause notice in question

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue determining that supplies made by respondent / taxpayer fell under Sixth Sched. to Sales Tax Act, 1990, which were exempted food items

Validity

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue just reproduced contention of respondent / taxpayer and had endorsed the same without any corroborative documents brought on record or giving any categorical findings

Such findings of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue were not sustainable in view of sales tax returns for relevant tax periods

If entire supplies of respondent / taxpayer were covered under Third and Sixth Sched. of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and there was no other supplies, then respondent / taxpayer could not claim input tax

High Court set aside all orders in question and matter was remanded to concerned official holding lawful jurisdiction for re-examining facts and to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to respondent / taxpayer

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner / withholding company was aggrieved of imposition of recovery of Rs.12,098,984/- as principal amount of sales tax, along with penalty and default surcharge

Validity

Allegation of not withholding amount of sales tax on receiving services against petitioner / withholding company related to the period prior to promulgation of Finance Act, 2021

Text of amendment Act (Finance Act, 2021) did not give any impression of its retrospective application and that the liability to pay sales tax on services was on the service provider

Recipient was only responsible to withhold the amount of sales tax at the rate specified in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sales Tax on Services Special Procedure (Withholding) Regulations, 2015

Demand raised by authorities in terms of S. 30(3) of Finance Act, 2013 was illegal and without lawful authority

Before amendment of Finance Act, 2013 (through Finance Act, 2021) the authority was competent to issue a notification in official gazette to prescribe a special procedure for payment of taxes and further required any person or class of persons, whether registered or not for the purpose of Finance Act, 2013 to withhold full or part of tax charged for such a person or class of persons on the provision of any taxable services or class of taxable service and to deposit tax so withheld with government

Regulations were framed which envisaged that recipient of services should withhold sales tax on services and deposit the same in government head of account

During the period under consideration, liability upon withholding agent did not exist

Non-compliance of such Regulations was not visited with any penalty, albeit personal liability of withholding agent

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Statutory provisions governing exclusion of time due to adjournments sought by taxpayer, are enshrined in Ss. 40(4) & 68(5) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013

Both provisions share similar language in principle but a fundamental distinction exists: provision of S. 68(5) of Finance Act, 2013 explicitly imposes a maximum cap of thirty days on exclusion of time due to such adjournments, whereas provision of S.40(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013 does not prescribe any such limitation

Such distinction is pivotal in determining correct computation of limitation period in each case

Appellate Tribunal Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority, while interpreting provisions of Ss. 40 & 68 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013, failed to consider that Show Cause Notices issued to taxpayer stemmed from audit, which fell within the ambit of S.40 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013, rather than S.68 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013

By applying thirty-day cap on the exclusion of time due to adjournments obtained by taxpayers, the Tribunal had misinterpreted the law

Correct legal approach required the Tribunal to assess the matter under S.40 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013 wherein no such cap was prescribed, and the period consumed due to adjournments sought by taxpayers was to be excluded in its entirety

Reasoning of Appellate Tribunal Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority was flawed as it improperly applied statutory cap to S.40 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013 to adjudication that was only applicable under S.68 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013, thereby rendering its decision legally unsustainable

High Court remanded the matter to Appellate Tribunal Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority for reconsideration, as the assessment was made within the prescribed limitation period

High Court directed Appellate Tribunal Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority to re-evaluate the case while duly accounting for all relevant documentation in computing the limitation period in accordance with the applicable provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013, and where found to be in time, proceed to decide the cases on merit

Reference was allowed in circumstances.

Penalty imposed by authorities was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal on the ground that raw material after conversion into finished goods had already been exported

Respondent / taxpayer assailed the Reference on the plea that liability was against Company whereas Reference was filed against director of Company

Respondent / taxpayer also raised objection against Reference which was not even signed by Collector Customs

Validity

Vakalatnama available on record clearly suggested that the Reference was filed on the instruction of Collector Customs by the counsel representing the Department, however, it was only signed by the counsel but at belated stage

Even if the Collector had failed to sign memo. of Reference but had consented to filing of Reference the same would be in accordance with law provided the counsel representing Department not only had signed the Reference in time but had presented the same before Court within the time stipulated by the law

Appeal was filed by the director and not by the Company, therefore, the company was not a necessary party as the matter only related to adjudication of certain questions of law which arose out of the judgment of Customs Appellate Tribunal

High Court overruled the objection raised by respondent / taxpayer

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as the Reference filed by authorities was barred by limitation

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue setting aside order passed by respondent / registered person

Validity

Provision of S. 21(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 only envisages for deregistration of blacklisting and suspension of registration of a registered person only when the Commissioner is satisfied that a registered person is found to have issued fake invoice or has otherwise committed tax fraud

Commissioner may blacklist such a person or suspend his registration in accordance with the procedure as provided under R. 12 of Sales Tax Rules, 2006

None of these attributes were available in the present case to attract cancellation/suspension of registration as provided under S. 2l of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Action of Commissioner Inland Revenue prima-facie appeared to a be based on incorrect appreciation of law i.e. failure of respondents / registered persons to provide consumption certificate as required under Entry No.151 of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as the order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue was based on alien consideration and decision of the Tribunal was based on correct appreciation of law

High Court answered all questions in negative

Reference petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Subject matter was specified 'excisable goods' and 'excisable services' as provided in First Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005

Taxing event was when 'excisable goods' were produced or manufactured or when 'excisable services' were provided or rendered; the person liable to pay tax was who produced or manufactured 'excisable goods' or the one who provided or rendered 'excisable services'

Extent of liability that was the rate of excise duty was specified in First Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005

It was only when the first two essential conditions were fulfilled that the excise duty at the rate specified under Federal Excise Act, 2005 would be chargeable to the person who manufactured 'excisable goods' or the person who provided 'excisable services'

Two different rates of duties were provided under law relating to payment of excise duty on sale of concentrate vis-a-vis aerated water containing added sugar or other sweetening matters of flavoreds in First Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005

Keeping in view the two different rates, Federal Board of Revenue in its own wisdom had allowed bottling factories to pay excise duties as per the rates applicable to concentrate or avail the second option

There was no inconsistency in the scheme procedure and mechanism of levying duties on concentrated vis-a-vis aerated water

Provisions of notification CEGO No. 4 of 2002 dated 15-06-2002 were alive under the mandate of S. 24 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa General Clauses Act, 1956 and were enforceable on repeal of Central Excise Act, 1944, through re-enacted Federal Excise Act, 2005 and would continue so unless it was rescinded or recalled by appropriate and competent forum under the scheme of re-enacted Federal Excise Act, 2005

Reference was answered in affirmative, in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue setting aside show cause notice issued to respondents / taxpayers to recover Federal Excise Duty

Validity

Levy and collection of Federal Excise Duty on Ghee and Oil sector placed in Second Schedule to Federal Excise Act, 2005, were recoverable in the manner and mode as provided under Sales Tax Act, 1990

Intention of law maker by inserting S.7 in Federal Excise Act, 2005 where input adjustment had already been provided was aimed to allow to assessee all adjustment even admissible to it under the regime provided under Sales Tax Act, 1990, including input adjustment of sales tax on all purchases made by a registered person during taxable/economic activities

Through S.7 to Federal Excise Act, 2005 by reference the beneficial regime of input adjustment as provided under S.7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was borrowed which was also a machinery provision relating to adjustment of input tax

Findings of both the forum relating to liability of respondents to pay Federal Excise Duty were not based on correct principles as stated above

Assessing officer passed order of assessment ignoring essential legal and factual aspects of the case whereas Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue straightaway annulled assessment order ignoring the fact that during period in question, respondents/taxpayers were subject to impost of Federal Excise Duty

High Court set aside order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as well as assessment in question and remanded the matter to assessing officer for assessment afresh

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Primary object and purpose of respondent / taxpayer company was to carry on and operate air transport service and not to derive any profit on debt as required under S. 18(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

For the purpose to achieve such object respondent / taxpayer company was authorized to invest surplus money of the company in shares, stocks or securities of any company, debentures, debenture stocks or in any investments, short term and long term participation, term finance certificates or any other government or semi-government securities

Respondent / taxpayer company was specifically not allowed to indulge in non-banking finance business, banking or an investment company or any such business

Respondent / taxpayer company was incorporated on 06-06-2016 though certificate of commencement of business was issued on 26-08-2016, however, date of actual commencement of business was 20-12-2020, when first sales tax return was filed

Profit in question accrued on surplus money from year 2017 to 2020 and was before commencement of respondent's / taxpayer's company business

Profit on surplus fund amount to income from other sources and expenses were covered under the head of pre-commencement expenses under S. 25(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Assessing Officer lawfully disallowed and amortized expenses against interest on income under the relevant provision of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Authorities initiated recovery proceedings against respondent / taxpayer for filing delayed tax returns and payment of tax due

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set aside imposition of penalty and default surcharge on the ground that liability on account of principal amount of tax stood discharged voluntarily prior to initiation of proceedings under S. 11(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Even if upon filing of return after due date no tax, as defined in terms of S. 2(34) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and subject to the context, was payable, still penalty and default surcharge could be ordered and claimed

Restrictive interpretation of scope of "order of assessment of tax" would nullify disciplined compliance envisaged in law and otherwise would render Ss. 33 & 34 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 as redundant

Such redundancy was to be avoided upon harmonized reading of applicable provisions

Division Bench of High Court set aside order of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue as the same was legally defective

Division Bench of High Court remanded the matter to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue for de novo determination on appeal of respondent / taxpayer afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to parties

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Taxpayer was aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, recalling its earlier order in exercise of powers of rectification

Plea raised by taxpayer was that such rectification of order tantamount to reviewing of earlier order

Validity

In the instant case jurisdictional Courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) had decided issue of jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner, in the wake of delegation of authority by Commissioner, under S.122(5A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Such order escaped attention of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue when original order was passed

Exercise of rectification jurisdiction by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was valid, in accordance with the law and within the scope of "mistake apparent from the record"

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was justified to allow applications upon identifying mistake apparent from the record, in wake of existing judicial pronouncements by Constitutional Courts where issue of jurisdiction had been decided conclusively

High Court answered questions in favour of respondent / authorities and against taxpayer

Reference application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant / director of importer company was aggrieved of attachment of her house to seek recovery of outstanding duties and taxes for goods imported by respondent / company

Validity

At the relevant time Customs Recovery Rules, 1992 did not contain any provision intended to impose liability on directors for payment of taxes and duties owned by importer company or to bring into the net the transaction for transfer of property in dispute or to declare applicant / director and her mother as defaulter

Applicant / director when confronted with proclamation of attachment of her property, rightly filed application for becoming party to appeal of company in order to support its case against order-in-original

Customs Appellate Tribunal having allowed application of petitioner / director was required to adjudicate upon her claim which it in fact did through its order by rejecting the same on merits

Petitioner / director rightly filed reference before High Court

High Court decided all the questions in affirmative in favour of applicant / director

Reference was allowed, in circumstances.

Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948), S. 3B & Schedule, Part-2

Reference

Amount of royalty

Deduction

Rate of tax

Applicability

Petroleum Concession Agreement

Dispute was with regard to rate of tax and deduction of amount of royalty

Held: Rate of royalty and tax on income were clearly provided in Part-2 to the Schedule to Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 according to which it was not to be more than 55% nor less than 50% of the profits and gains before deduction of payments to Government

As and when calculation was being made for the purposes of calculating any tax on any income [either @ 50% or 55% or any other agreed rate]it had to be arrived at before deduction of payments to Government

Only protection on the basis of Petroleum Concession Agreement available to applicants / taxpayers was in respect of aggregate of the tax on income and other payments to Government

In terms of R. 4 (2) of Part-I of Fifth Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it was also provided that if aggregates of taxes on income and payments to government was greater or less than the amount provided for in the Agreement, an automatic adjustment in the form of further payment or an abatement of tax could be availed of

Protection in Petroleum Concession Agreement was dependent on the applicable laws

If something had not been provided in it then it could not have been incorporated in Petroleum Concession Agreement, whereas even otherwise wording of Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 would be the law and should prevail which catered for this clearly

All rates provided in Petroleum Concession Agreements (i.e. 50% to 55%) were applicable on profits and gains before deduction of royalty

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Taxpayers were stock brokers who had been facilitating sale and purchase of shares through their offices in Karachi and Lahore

Dispute was with regard to recovery of sales tax on earning of commission against services provided by stock exchange brokers to their clients in Lahore

Validity

"Stockbroker" and a "foreign exchange broker" does not come within the definition of any of the services as indicated in chapter of Tariff Heading 98-13 of Second Schedule to Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011, nor is it a person "dealing in any such services" so as to bring it within the purview of that Tariff Heading

Such service also does not come within Heading 9813.8000 as it is admittedly not a "banker to an issue" and also cannot fall within the definition of the expression "others" as contained in Sub-Heading 9813.8100, which having to be read in the context of Heading 9813.8000 must be read as other persons who are acting as "bankers to an issue"

Economic activity that was being offered by the taxpayers was not to act as "banker to an issue" and hence the activity undertaken did not fall with the perimeters of such Tariff Heading either

High Court decided the questions in favour of taxpayers and against the authorities

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner / taxpayer was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by authorities under S. 11(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 with regard to imposing of penalty for alleged violation of non-filing of certain sales tax returns

Validity

When there was violation of S. 26 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 only then provision of S. 33 (1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was relevant

No separate show-cause notice for violation of S. 26 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was issued

There was no corresponding amendment in S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 therefore, general principle of law i.e. for imposition of penalty an element of mens rea must be present was attracted

There was no apparent element of mens rea on the part of applicant / taxpayer in non-filing of its sales tax returns for period in question

There was no short levied amount of sale tax determined against applicant / taxpayer, therefore, maximum penalty so imposed could not be sustained

High Court set aside orders passed by the forums below

Reference was allowed, in circumstances.

Applicant / taxpayer contended that amount in question was never an income determined in terms of S. 108 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 nor amount of loan given to an associated company could be deemed to be an income without a deeming clause

Validity

If associated concern had borrowed such money, then that associated concern would have paid interest, which could be claimed as an expense

Advanced amount as a loan never resulted in any ownership of property in the name of applicant / taxpayer, which was purchased by associated concern in its own name

This was not even a capital expense

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, as it was justified in setting aside finding of Commissioner (Appeals)

High Court set aside order of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue to the extent of salaries, as respondent / authorities had not assailed such finding of Assessing Officer in respect of payment of salaries and wages before the Commissioner (Appeals)

Amount which was not agitated by applicant / taxpayer, was correctly added to its income in terms of S. 21(m) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Reference was dismissed accordingly.

Authorities issued show cause notice requiring applicant / taxpayer regarding charging of tax for constituting proceeds from disposal of fixed assets

Validity

Disposal of fixed assets is not liable to sales tax

Penalty in column 2 of Table under S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is meant to be imposed after a taxpayer is found liable for an offence provided for in S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Additional Commissioner, as a tax official and member of the Executive, cannot find a taxpayer guilty of an offence for purposes of S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and proceed to impose the penalty that is attracted in case a person is found guilty of the relevant offence

Authority and jurisdiction to try a person for an offence prescribed in S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is vested in Special Judge appointed pursuant to S. 37(c) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court set-aside the orders generating tax demand in terms of S. 3 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, against applicant / taxpayer

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Authorities sought recovery of tax under S. 11(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, for using cut wood for manufacturing its goods falling within the ambit of Entry No.10 of Table-II of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Wood plank/tree for the purpose of sale, if cut in pieces did not attract manufacturing process as such process was neither combined with another article nor the cut wood was so changed or transformed to an article being distinctly used

Taxpayer was purchasing raw wood where standing trees of "poplar" and "eucalyptus" were cut into pieces (admittedly an agriculture produce), the same did not in any manner transform into another product and remained as agriculture produce as long as it was not subjected to further process of manufacture for manufacturing chipboard or laminated wood

At the point of purchasing raw "cut wood", it remained an agriculture produce and was exempt from incidence of sales tax in view of Entry No.10 of Table-II of Sixth Schedule to Sales Tax Act, 1990

Sales Tax Reference was answered in positive.

Respondent / Peshawar Electric Supply Company was issued with show cause notice relating to inadmissible input adjustment by the Company

Matter was decided by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in favour of respondent / Company

Validity

Notification SRO 480(I)/2007 dated 09-06-2007 was issued under S.74 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and was not without jurisdiction

Extension of time as per verbiage of S.74 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was time bound and the Legislature itself had not restricted jurisdiction of Federal Board of Revenue relating to extension of time even after the period which had lapsed

Input adjustment was linked with taxable supply which meant economic / taxable activities carried out by any person whether or not for profit and included an activity carried on by it that involved supply of goods and anything done or undertaken during commencement or termination of economic activity

Respondent / Electric Company paid sales tax at the time of purchasing taxable goods, therefore the tax remained with revenue as a trust which was adjustable by the company at the time of its output tax payable by respondent / Electric Company in course of taxable activities

Even if the electricity was lost either on account of pilferage or at the time of distribution which was a natural process as electricity passing through wires was certainly lost due to technical issues, however, such activity of respondent / Electric Company did not fall within the mischief of taxable activities

Respondent / Electric Company was entitled to input adjustment of sales tax paid at the time of purchasing taxable goods against electricity produced by it however the same was lost either on account of pilferage, distribution losses or technical reasons

High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner / company was aggrieved of bar imposed on input tax credit or refund on packing material purchased by registered person whose taxable supplies were zero rated

Validity

Provision of S. 3 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is a charging section, whereas S. 7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, allows input adjustment to a registered person for the purpose of determining tax liability in respect of taxable supplies, when such person has paid input tax for the purpose of taxable supplies made or to be made by him from the output tax i.e. due from him

Mandate of S. 7(l) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 is allowing input adjustment on such goods which are used for the purpose of taxable supplies

Federal Government, under S. 8(b) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, has been given power to notify any other goods in official Gazette against which input adjustment cannot be allowed

Federal Government has no jurisdiction to create and insert a new class in the regime of Sales Tax Act, 1990, which can disentitle input adjustment which is otherwise allowable to a registered person under a statutory dispensation i.e. S. 7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Input adjustment to a registered person against goods, which are or would be used for taxable activities, has been allowed under S. 7 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Packing material purchased by petitioner / company was used for the purpose of taxable supplies, therefore, petitioner / company was entitled to adjust input tax against its output tax

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Dispute was with regard to method of maintaining accounts by respondent / banks whereby interest against sticky loans were debited to a separate account (mark-up suspense account)

Plea raised by authorities was that same interest should be offered for calculating income tax liability as accrued income of that tax year

Validity

Mere fact that interest becomes receivable to a bank against its sticky loan does not necessarily become its income when banks are maintaining their accounts on mercantile base or even maintaining a hybrid method of accounting

Such interest becomes subject to impost of tax when it is offered for taxation by bank or lending institution as per mercantile practice

High Court declined to interfere in observation of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue that taxpayer had a choice to adopt or maintain a third system of maintaining its account i.e. hybrid method where elements of both the systems were present and was a recognized method of accounting

Word 'accrues or arises' as it occurred in S.11(1) (a) (ii) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the purpose of counting total income by a banking company or lending institution was to be applied keeping in view recognized accounting method adopted by the institution and thus interest entry debited in account of customer relating to non-performing assets would be subject to impost of tax when the same had actually become recoverable and as such was offered for taxation by the bank

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue setting aside assessment orders for conducting raid without obtaining arrest warrants and non-associating recovery witnesses of the locality

Validity

Obtaining search warrants and conducting raid / search in presence of two witnesses are meant and aimed to ensure that enormous powers of search by authorized officer is exercised honestly and judiciously

When authorized officer of revenue department has to conduct search of a place in terms of enabling provision of Federal Excise Act, 2005 and when he is prima facie of the opinion that if recourse is made to obtaining of search warrant, the valuable evidence can be destroyed by accused or a person involved in tax evasion, such officer may conduct search / raid of such premises in exceptional circumstances without obtaining search warrants from competent Court

Prime responsibility of revenue official is to protect state revenue

High Court set aside findings of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal setting aside extra duties and taxes imposed against respondents / importers

Validity

No issue relating to short levy of amount was adjudged by assessing officer, though, order-in-original passed by assessing officer was appealable to Collector Customs (Appeal) in terms of S.193 of Customs Act, 1969, as well as before Customs Appellate Tribunal under S. 194-A of Customs Act, 1969

Appeal could be filed on the issues which were directly and substantially an issue before adjudicating officer

Appeal was not only a statutory right, but was a continuation of proceedings initiated at lower forum and appellate fora could adjudicate upon an issue which had remained directly and substantially an issue before the first forum and had no authority to go beyond such issue

Customs Appellate Tribunal decided issue relating to assessment and levy of duties and taxes, which never remained subject of show cause notice

Adjudication in question was based on extraneous consideration and was illegal

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant/National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC) was licensed by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority to transmit electricity from Generation Companies (GENCOs) to Distribution Companies (DISCOs)

Dispute was with regard to charging of minimum tax on turnover

Validity

There was no difference in the functions of Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited (CPPA-G) as it existed now and functions performed by CPPA of NTDC prior to 03-06-2015

CPPA-G was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle and was tasked with administering a Market Settlement System for commercial transactions envisaged by Agreement

DISCOs remained principal and primary obligor in respect of payments and obligations of purchaser (a DISCO in a particular case) towards seller or supplier (GENCOs) under the power purchase agreement

NTDC merely recovered the Use of System Charges and similarly CPPA-G was entitled to market operation fee while operating Market Settlement System

DISCOs were paying minimum tax on turnover including purchase price of electricity

Electricity which was purchased from GENCOs by DISCOs was made liable to minimum tax on the turnover of DISCOs and FBR did not demand that tax from NTDC as well

Purchase of electricity was not done firstly by NTDC and thereafter NTDC did not sell electric power to DISCOs at inflated price

Authorities did not produce any evidence to such effect

NTDC would be falling in breach of its transmission license if it were to engage in such a business

High Court set aside the orders passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Undisputed public documents can be looked at by High Court while deciding Reference applications and can take notice of such documents in any case.

Authorities considered subsidy granted by Federal Government as turnover of respondent / taxpayers, who were companies engaged in business of distribution of electricity

Validity

Term 'turnover' as defined in S. 113(3)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is for sale of goods to take place from which gross receipts are derived

It does not constrain the sources from which those receipts have to be derived which may be one or multiple sources

Respondents' / taxpayers' / Discos' misplaced notion that there was in fact no sale to Federal Government had no basis

No sale needed take place to Federal Government and it was enough if it was done to the consumers

Amount recovered from consumers as well as subsidy amount constituted revenue receipts cumulatively liable to tax and comprised in definition of 'turnover' in S. 113 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

High Court decided the matter in favour of Authorities and against respondents / taxpayers

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Reading of Notification SRO No.670(I)/2013 dated 18-7-2013 in bits and pieces would contravene the intent and purpose of statutory instrument, which purpose was grant of concession but subject to scrutiny regarding determination of input/output ratios of manufacturer

Strict adherence to requirements of Notification SRO No.670(I)/2013, dated 18-7-2013 would ensure supply of completely assembled bicycles and not the sale of parts of bicycles

This was the mischief sought to be addressed by introducing statutory instrument

Harmonious reading of subject matter conditions would ensure enforcement of Notification SRO No.670(I)/2013, dated 18-7-2013 in letter and spirit and lawful gaining of advantages / concessions extended thereunder

High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue which had decided the matter on erroneous construction of subject matter conditions

High Court directed Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue to decide appeal of respondent / registered person afresh upon reading conditions (i) and (ii) of Notification SRO No.670(I)/2013, dated 18-7-2013, conjunctively and not disjunctively

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal had not erred in law by vacating orders passed by lower fora wrongly relying on Notification SRO 333(I)/2011, dated 02-05-2011 and Clause 45A of Part IV of Second Sched. ignoring S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Restraint imposed specifically excluded incidence of withholding tax deductions under S.153(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

As no deduction was permissible, therefore, no question of classification of such deduction as final tax, in terms of S.153(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had arisen

Taxpayer claimed income from both streams, covered under normal and final tax regimes

Incidence of deduction of withholding tax under S. 153(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and claiming benefit of proviso were mutually exclusive

Allegations that withholding tax deductions were claimed as corresponding adjustment of minimum tax liability were misconceived

Provision of S. 113 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was not ignored and order of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue was not fully comprehended

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue did not commit any illegality and had rightly construed scope and effect of proviso to Cl. 45A of Part-IV of Second Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and correctly allowed concessional rates for the purposes of minimum tax liability

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue did not commit any error while construing S.113 and Cl. 45A, Part-IV of Second Sched. to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the purposes of relevant tax years

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Provision of S. 214D of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, under which subject notice was issued, was omitted by Finance Act, 2018 which took effect on 22-05-2018 while subject notice was issued on 08-11-2018 when the provision was no more in field

No right had accrued in favor of authorities at the time of issuance of notice in question

Selection for audit was not automatic or forthwith triggered upon happening of an event of default, as envisaged by S. 214A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 but upon latest discovery of information, incidentally when relevant provision of law was not available on the statute book

High Court declined to interfere, as the authorities failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which was well-founded

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicant/National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC) was licensed by National Electric Power Regulatory Authority to transmit electricity from Generation Companies (GENCOs) to Distribution Companies (DISCOs)

Dispute was with regard to charging of minimum tax on turnover

Validity

There was no difference in the functions of Central Power Purchasing Agency (Guarantee) Limited (CPPA-G) as it existed now and functions performed by CPPA of NTDC prior to 03-06-2015

CPPA-G was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle and was tasked with administering a Market Settlement System for commercial transactions envisaged by agreement

DISCOs remained principal and primary obligor in respect of payments and obligations of purchaser (a DISCO in a particular case) towards seller or supplier (GENCOs) under the power purchase agreement

NTDC merely recovered the Use of System Charges and similarly CPPA-G was entitled to market operation fee while operating Market Settlement System

DISCOs were paying minimum tax on turnover including purchase price of electricity

Electricity which was purchased from GENCOs by DISCOs was made liable to minimum tax on the turnover of DISCOs and FBR did not demand that tax from NTDC as well

Purchase of electricity was not done firstly by NTDC and thereafter NTDC did not sell electric power to DISCOs at inflated price

Authorities did not produce any evidence to such effect

NTDC would be falling in breach of its transmission license if it were to engage in such a business

High Court set aside the orders passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Undisputed public documents can be looked at by High Court while deciding Reference application sand can take notice of such documents in any case.

Custom General Order 12 of 2002, dated 15-6-2002 [as amended vide Custom General Order 6 of 2010, dated 20-8-2010 para. 25A

Reference

Afghan Transit Trade

Short supply beyond one percent

Dispute between the parties was with regard to levy of duties and taxes in respect of loss of consignment due to transit evaporation beyond one percent and loss due to terrorism

Validity

Damage caused by any event including terrorism, Customs Appellate Tribunal was the last fact finding forum and until such stage not a single incident of act of terrorism was established

Carriers of the consignment were not absolved from their responsibilities and were liable to pay duties and taxes as act of terrorism did not cause any damage to consignments on their way to Afghanistan

Carriers transporting such goods could not establish that loss was due to evaporation rather it was due to ill will of carriers who took advantage of such concession and gained commercially on such count

In absence of such understanding, loss could not be counted against carriers who were entitled to one percent concession and were saddled with responsibilities of duties and taxes over one percent

None of the clauses of paragraph 25A added to Customs General Order 12 of 2002 absolved importer / carrier from payment of duties and taxes beyond one percent whereas concession of one percent would remain intact

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Dispute with regard to fixing duty on the basis of Valuation Ruling was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal holding that the same were valid for 90 days only

Validity

Reliance could not be placed on a Valuation Ruling if unchallengeable transaction value posed by importer was supported by irrefutable trail of documents

In presence of S. 25 of Customs Act, 1969, non-obstante clause of S.25A of Customs Act, 1969, should be used minimalistically, only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that no irreparable damage was inflicted by its use

Provisions of S.25A of Customs Act, 1969, could not be used customarily and for long stretch of time (e.g. 90 days)

Under the phrase "at or about the same time" even 90 days lifetime of Valuation Rulings was contrary to the spirit of the currency of trade (i.e., "time")

High Court answered the question framed by authorities in negative, i.e., against the department and in favor of the importers

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Documents / evidence remained un-rebutted and there was no justification available with authorities to pass an order with regard to outright confiscation of vehicle in question

Respondent / owner had discharged his burden with regard to ownership of the vehicle

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal which was the last fact finding authority and its decision was on the basis of facts obtained in the matter

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue justifying tax claim entitlement of taxpayer

Validity

Provision of S.239(15) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, provided that S.107AA of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, (since repealed) would continue to apply until 30-06-2002

Tax-credit available from pervious assessment year could be adjusted on or after 30-6-2002 which was in conformity with spirit of S. 239(15) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Tax credit was an entitlement linked with making of an investment, and a tax-payer would become entitled to it as soon as an investment as provided in S.107AA of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (since repealed) or for that matter under Ss.107 & 107A is made, whereas its adjustment and deduction in computation of tax payable was a matter of assessment proceedings

Right to claim tax credit came into existence with the making of investment in the purchase of plant and machinery and actual deduction from the tax payable was a matter of implementation only

Respondent / taxpayer was fully entitled to adjust available tax-credit from assessment year 2002-2003, which was available under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, (since repealed) in its return for tax-year 2003, filed and finalized under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Reference Application was dismissed accordingly.

Importer was aggrieved of findings of Customs Appellate Tribunal on criminal aspect of the matter while deciding civil proceedings

Validity

Criminal proceedings were initiated against importer which were pending

Customs Appellate Tribunal while deciding the matter could not discuss criminal aspect of the matter

Civil matter and criminal matters though parametria to each other, but findings in one matter were neither conclusive nor binding upon the other

Customs Appellate Tribunal was not justified in dilating upon the matter concerning criminal aspects, as the same could influence, prejudice and hamper the proceedings which were pending

Customs Appellate Tribunal was the last fact finding authority in respect of factual aspects but while deciding the appeal had dilated upon criminal aspects of the case and the same was not justified

Such observations made by Customs Appellate Tribunal could influence or prejudice the matter pending before Criminal Court

High Court declared that findings given by Customs Appellate Tribunal on criminal aspects could only be treated as academic in nature and would neither influence nor prejudice Trial Court dealing with the prosecution

High Court directed the Trial Court to pass an independent order based on the facts placed before it strictly in accordance with law

Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal setting aside Valuation Ruling and Order-in-Revision

Validity

For transactional values provision of S. 25(1) of Customs Act, 1969, was inapplicable

Stakeholders never provided any substantial documents to accept such transactional values under S.25(1) Customs Act, 1969

Different values were declared by different importers for the same product; and therefore, next method of valuation i.e. identical goods and similar goods methods, as provided under Ss. 25(5) & (6) of Customs Act, 1969, was also inapplicable in absence of absolute demonstrable evidence of qualities and quantities as well as the commercial level of such values

Next method of valuation was invoked i.e. Deductive Value Method under S. 25(7) of Customs Act, 1969, and the values were determined

Customs Appellate Tribunal wrongly held that values of goods in question were to be determined directly under S. 25(9) of Customs Act, 1969, (Fall Back Method) through Valuation Ruling No.1452 of 2020 dated 24-06-2020 without following the sequential methods as provided under S. 25 of Customs Act, 1969

High Court set aside order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was allowed accordingly.

In view of the entries reflected in such bank statement tax department suspected that income of taxpayer might be higher than that which was offered up for taxation

Authorities assumed that all entries in bank statement constituted revenue without taking into account refunds issued by respondent / taxpayer to its customers as reflected in its tax return

Commissioner (Appeals) afforded respondent / taxpayer opportunity to explain entries in bank statement and taxpayer had successfully did so which was why the Commissioner (Appeals) then set aside additional demand generated after reassessment by Commissioner Inland Revenue

Validity

Findings of Commissioner (Appeals) itself demonstrated that the basis on which tax department initiated reassessment proceedings was not definite information

Such basis withered once a meaningful opportunity was provided to taxpayer to explain tax return that constituted original assessment

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, as it did not err in concluding that bank statements in and of themselves did not constitute definite information for purposes of S.122(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as it stood at the relevant time

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Customs Appellate Tribunal committed grave error by releasing vehicle in question subject to payment of 20% redemption fine on its custom value

High Court set aside the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal which overlooked forensic report vis-à-vis tempered chasis number and order of authorities confiscating vehicle was upheld

Reference was allowed, in circumstances.

Dispute was with regard to exemption granted to respondent tax-payer on the plea that goods were supplied by Norwegian Refugee Council to internally displaced persons

Validity

Any person could be exempt from levy and imposition of income tax if he had earned income from business inside tribal area

If income was earned from business in settled area, then same person would be liable to tax

Immunity provided in Art. 247 (since repealed) of the Constitution was territory specific and not persons specific

Immunity from payment of sales tax under Art.247 (since repealed) of the Constitution was area specific by its letter as well as intent

Customs Appellate Tribunal wrongly held supplies made to Internally Displaced Persons in settled area as exempt from levy of sales tax under Art. 247 (since repealed) of the Constitution

Norwegian Refugee Council was neither privileged person nor was exempted from payment of tax under Fifth Schedule of Sale Tax Act, 1990

High Court set aside order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as exemption under Art. 247 (since repealed) of Constitution was not available

High Court restored orders-in-original as well as judgments passed by Appellate Authority

Reference was allowed, in circumstances.

In order to attract baring clause i.e. clause "b" of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, authorities had to establish that smuggled goods which a vehicle was carrying were concealed in false cavities or the vehicle was wholly and exclusively used in smuggling of goods

Word wholly and exclusively used in Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, were used in adjective form which meant "in its entirety" and was being used for no purpose other than smuggling as the word exclusively denoted

In the present case neither the smuggled goods were concealed in false cavities of vehicle in question nor it was the normal course of business of the owner of vehicle to use the same for the purpose of smuggling

When the vehicle in question had no history of being repeatedly involved in smuggling of goods then under Cl. 2(f) of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, it could be released against payment of redemption fine and vehicle would not be liable to outright confiscation under clause (b) of Notification SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dispute was with regard to trials of two criminal cases arising out of two FIR registered at two different districts "M" and "C" about abduction of a person from one district and his murder in other

Validity

When an offence was committed in parts in two different areas, or continued to be committed in more local areas, then it was prerogative of either of the Courts to take cognizance of the matter having jurisdiction over any of such areas

Legislation itself had conferred concurrent jurisdiction upon both the Courts to adjudicate upon the matter in respect of the offences which were / had been committed in their respective jurisdiction

On the touchstone of Rule 3 of Chapter 26 of Volume III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, it was also to be seen as to which Court was more suitable for both the parties

Both the parties and complainant party as well as prosecution witnesses hailed from District "C" therefore the Court who took cognizance of the matter regarding abduction of the deceased was more suitable to also adjudicate upon the matter regarding murder of the abductee

High Court in exercise of jurisdiction/ power as envisaged under S. 526, Cr.P.C. transferred case pending at district "M" to Court at district "C"

Reference was answered accordingly.

Show-cause notice was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal for mentioning of S.11(3) instead of S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Validity

Merely because show-cause notices were labelled under S.11(3) instead of S.36 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not such a defect or vagueness to undergo test of judicial scrutiny

Such omission did not cause any prejudice to respondent-taxpayers and the same could not be declared invalid under the law

Main issues raised by parties were not decided by Customs Appellate Tribunal, therefore, High Court in reference jurisdiction was deprived of the views of the Tribunal, as Reference Application was to be decided on the basis of facts determined by Appellate Tribunal

High Court set aside order in question and matter was remanded to Customs Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Authorities allowed compensation for the period starting from three months after receipt of appellate order and rejected the claim for period during which order under S. 120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was operative

In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed compensation for the year as well against which the authorities filed an appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Validity

Authorities did not dispute that compensation was due on account of delayed refund

Only dispute was regarding one of the periods in question for which compensation was denied

Provision of S.171(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was clear and unequivocal, which had obliged the Commissioner to pay to taxpayer a further amount by way of compensation where refund due to taxpayer was not paid within three months of the date on which it had become due

Two forums below were right in holding that for the purpose of S.171(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, refund became due on the date of assessment order made under S.120(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

High Court decided question of law in favour of respondents / taxpayers

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue setting aside amendment of assessment order

Validity

If audit was conducted and discrepancies were noted by Taxation Officer, that would clearly constitute definite information to clothe Taxation Officer with the power to amend or further amend assessment order in respect of a tax year

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue relied upon extraneous circumstances to uphold order of Commissioner (Appeals) in stating that there was no definite information with the department for amendment of assessment order

High Court decided question of law in favour of authorities as Taxation officer issued notice in terms of S.122(9) to respondents / taxpayers who had power to pass order of amendment of assessment

Reference was allowed, in circumstances.