Amnesty Scheme

Contention of appellant was that he had declared foreign assets by availing Amnesty Scheme and his assets were immune from any taxation

Validity

At the time of availing Amnesty Scheme, law legislated by the Parliament was acknowledged and availed, which sought declaration of foreign assets

No objection was raised that Amnesty Schemes had extra territorial operations

Constitutionality of Wealth Tax Act, 1963, was consistently upheld by constitutional courts, which law had taxed the assets, either inside or outside Pakistan

No case for arbitrariness and unintelligible classification arose within the class of persons subjected to tax, which constituted a reasonably and intelligibly defined classification

Appeal was dismissed.

Amnesty notification being beneficial subordinate legislation must be viewed liberally in favour of the taxpayer in order to achieve the solitary fiscal objective of quick recovery of stuck up tax revenue.

Taxpayer who had made voluntary payment before the cut-off date under the amnesty scheme can avail the amnesty scheme.

Amnesty notification being beneficial subordinate legislation must be viewed liberally in favour of the taxpayer in order to achieve the solitary fiscal objective of quick recovery of stuck up tax revenue.

Taxpayer who had made voluntary payment before the cut-off date under the amnesty scheme can avail the amnesty scheme.

Taxpayer contended that sales tax liability for the period from 15-3-2011 to 30-6-2012 had been discharged through cash payment by availing amnesty scheme; and whole principal amount of sales tax had been paid before 30-6-2013 during currency of amnesty scheme; and recovery on account of default surcharge and penalties shall remained abated

Validity

Since taxpayer had discharged his sales tax liabilities by way of depositing principal amount of sales tax within the time frame given under amnesty scheme granted by the Federal Government through a notification duly published in the official gazette, nothing remained payable as an additional amount on account of any default surcharge and penalty.

Government introduced amnesty scheme for registration of smuggled vehicles upon payment of customs duty along with redemption fine but Single Judge of High Court declared the scheme as discriminatory in nature

Validity

Amnesty scheme was not for a particular set of society, rather it was for general public

Discrimination could be taken into consideration if it was provided in the policy that the policy would be applicable to such and such class of people and was not applicable to such and such class of people

No differentiation existed and it was applicable to all people in the same manner, therefore, the policy was not discriminatory

Government had authority to make classification and people who had not such vehicle, which were unregistered and regarding which no duty was paid, were not discriminated against those who had such vehicles

Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment passed by Single Judge

Intra-court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Taxpayer contended that declaration was filed on 30-10-2008 and the limitation provided was one month from the date of receipt of declaration; that he had acquired the amnesty; that condition laid down for taking any action by the department was one month which had expired on 30-11-2008; and after lapse of limitation the notice was issued on 13-1-2009, therefore, issuance of such notice after passing of limitation period was ab initio void and illegal

Validity

Federal Board of Revenue Circular No.3 of 2008 dated 1-7-2008 prescribed a time limit of one month to inform the declarant

Time limit of one month had been prescribed in the said circular for taking action

Declarations had been filed on 31-10-2008 and first notice was issued on 13-1-2009 after a lapse of more than one month

Very purpose of introduction of the scheme in question was to provide free passage to the taxpayer without asking any question and doors of investigation and probe had been closed

Circular in question itself stated that "Scheme of Invest Tax-2008 was a voluntary scheme through which government had reposed trust in the taxpayers", therefore all subsequent notices issued from time to time and indulging in investigation, probe, fishing/roving inquiry and pressuring taxpayer to file returns of income was tantamount to frustrating the very purpose of the scheme and as such, were without any lawful jurisdiction having no legal effect

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Meanwhile, Federal Board of Revenue announced amnesty and allowed exemption of the whole amount of default surcharge and penalty payable by a person who had illegally adjusted input tax

Taxpayer applied for the waiver of additional tax and penalty and requested to drop the recovery proceedings on the ground that principal amount of sales tax had already been paid

Revenue contended that taxpayer deposited the principal amount of tax prior to the issuance of both S.R.Os., the taxpayer was not entitled to claim exemption/waiver and effect of a notifications and S.R.O. was pros-pective and not retrospective

Validity

Taxpayer having paid sales tax before the announcement of amnesty scheme could not be punished by depriving him of the benefit available under the S.R.Os.

Denial of the benefit to the taxpayer would indeed be discriminatory

Notification which was beneficial to a person could operate retrospectively

Delay in disposal of application was tantamount to maladministration

Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue to direct the Chief Commissioner to dispose of the taxpayer's application as per law.