Court | Year | Petitioner | Law/Section | Topic | Case Law | Citation/Ref. | View |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2024 |
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER
VS MESSRS YOUNG TECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS |
Finance Act, 2018 10 | levy on imported phones |
S. 10 [as amended by the Finance Act (XIII of 2022)]---Mobile handset levy on imported phones---Levy on ordinary phones other than smart phones---Legality---Respondents had imported mobile phones and were aggrieved by the imposition of mobile handset levy under Read More... |
2024 PTD 306 |
|
CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL | 2024 |
Messrs FAF ENTERPRISES, KARACHI VS The PRINCIPAL APPRAISER, MCC OF APPRAISEMENT-JIAP, KARACHI and another |
Federal Excise (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 Ss.14(1),14(2) Customs Act, 1969 Ss.80 | Penalty for evading Federal Excise Duty |
Federal Excise Act 2005---Ss. 14(1) & 14(2)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.80---Federal Excise Duty, determination of---Penalty for evading Federal Excise Duty---Customs Authorities, powers of---Scope---Customs Authorities issued show cause notice to importer Read More... |
2024 PTD 191 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2024 |
ORACLE SYSTEMS PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS PAKISTAN, through Secretary Revenue and Ex Officio Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 4 others |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 Ss.14 Federal Excise Rules, 2005 Ss.48(6),60(1)(b)(d),70(2) | Government dues---Coercive measure |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)---S.14---Federal Excise Duty Rules, 2005, Rr. 48(6), 60(1)(b)(d) & 70(2), proviso---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24 & 199---Constitutional petition---Government dues---Coercive measure---Notice of recovery, non-issuance Read More... |
2024 PTD 105 129 TAX 51 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2024 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, LYALPUR ZONE, FAISALABAD VS Messrs M.M. ENTERPRISES (MUNIR AHMAD), FAISALABAD |
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Ss.113,133(1) | Withholding tax |
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss. 113, 133 (1) & Second Sched., Part-IV, Cl. 45A---Notification SRO No. 333(I)/2011, dated 02-05-2011---Reference---Withholding tax---Deductions---Whether the Appellate Tribunal had not erred in law by vacating orders Read More... |
2024 PTD 99 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2024 |
The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD: In the matter of VS nemo |
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 Section: 2(3)(i)(a),2(3)(i)(b), 2(3)(i)(c),2(3)(ii),9,10 Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990 Section: 13,Sixth Schedule, | Imports by Diplomats |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---Ss. 2(3)(i)(a), 2(3)(i)(b), 2(3)(i)(c), 2(3)(ii), 9 & 10---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 13 & Sixth Sched. Serial No.46 (as omitted through Finance (Supplementary) Act, Read More... |
2024 PTD 86 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2024 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, GUJRANWALA VS MUHAMMAD KHALID CHAUDHRY |
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Ss.33(1),214A,214D | Interpretation of statutes---Saving clause |
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---Ss.133(1), 214A & 214D [as amended by Finance Act (XXX of 2018)]---Reference---Selection for audit---Amendment in law---Order selecting case of respondent / taxpayer for audit was set aside by Appellate Tribunal Inland Read More... |
2024 PTD 80 2024 PTCL 48 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2024 |
SHAKEEL AHMED KASANA and others VS FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN through Registrar Federal Tax Ombudsman and others |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) Ss. 10 &17 Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 | Inspection of office of Inland Revenue |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----Ss. 10 &17---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Federal Tax Ombudsman---Inspection of office of Inland Revenue---Jurisdiction---Scope---Petitioners were Read More... |
2024 PTD 1 (2024) 129 TAX 224 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2023 |
JS BANK LIMITED THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED/ATTORNEY AND OTHERS
VS PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE AND EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN FEDERAL BOARD REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act 2005 S. 19(6) & 21 Constitution, Art. 199 | Criminal proceedings |
Show-cause notice without jurisdiction-Criminal proceedings, initiating of---Pre-conditions--Petitioners were aggrieved of proceedings initiated by authorities on the allegation of obstructing tax recovery process--- Plea raised by Read More... |
2023 PTD 704 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2023 |
FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE
VS DEWAN SALMAN FIBER LTD. AND OTHERS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) S. 3. Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), S. 6. SRO 531(I)/88 dated 26.06.1988. (‘SRO 531/88’). SRO 555(I)/79 dated 28.06.1979. (‘SRO 555/79’). SRO 500(I)/93 dated 14.06.1993. (‘SRO 500/93’). SRO Nos. 545(1)194 and 546(1)194, both dated 09.06.1994. (‘SRO 545/94’ and ‘SRO 546/94’ respec | Exemption from excise duty |
Manufacturer of polyester staple fiber (PSF) in North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)— Exemption from excise duty on raw materials mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) and pure terephthalic acid (PTA)—Removal of—Legality— Whether SRO Read More... |
2023 PTD 1635 (2023) 128 TAX 435 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2023 |
THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD: IN THE MATTER OF
VS |
Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 Ss. 2(3)(i)(a)(b),2(3)(ii),9,10 | Jurisdiction assignments |
Pending cases of taxpayers, non-assigning of—Maladministration—Scope—Federal Tax Ombudsman took Own Motion against FBR Authorities to provide relief to the taxpayers because more than 65000 cases were unassigned, lying in CTO portal, in wake of Read More... |
2023 PTD 1614 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2023 |
MUHAMMAD KHALID VS THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000, Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10 Sales Tax Act 1990, Ss. 11, 45-B & 73. Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, Rr. 7 & 37 | Refund of tax to commercial exporter |
Maladministration— Scope—Refund of tax to commercial exporter on zero rated supplies— Authorities proceeded against the importer alleging him of using fake/flying invoices while taxpayer/ importer trying to satisfy the authorities—Complaint Read More... |
2023 PTD 1594 |
|
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal | 2023 |
MESSRS PAKISTAN FRUIT JUICE CO. (PVT.) LTD.
VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 7 | Value determinition for the purposes of duty/ notional value |
Retail price---Scope---Appellant was held liable to include the notional value of Federal Excise Duty in retail price for the purpose of calculating sales tax on the ground that the excise duty was to be factored in while computing the Read More... |
2023 PTD 817 |
|
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal | 2023 |
MESSRS PAKISTAN FRUIT JUICE CO. (PVT.) LTD.
VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 7 | grant of an extension of time |
Recovery of tax- Show cause notice--Adjudication proceedings---Order-in-original--- Limitation--Scope---Commissioner, under subsection (5) of S.11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and subsection (2) of S. 14 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, Read More... |
2023 PTD 817 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2023 |
SERVICE GLOBAL FOOTWEAR LIMITED and another VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 Ss.2(3), 9(2) 10 Sales Tax Act 1990 S. 3(2) [as amended vide Finance Act, 2019] Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25 25-A Customs General Order No. 12 of 2019 dated 30-02-2019-- | Goods were made chargeable to sales tax |
Maladministration--Scope--Certain goods were made chargeable to sales tax on the basis of retail price at the time of import by virtue of amendments made in S.3(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990--Federal Tax Ombudsman took Own Motion to check development and Read More... |
2023 PTD 1120 (2023) 128 TAX 90 2023 PLD 471 2023 SLD 1922 |
|
Customs Appellate Tribunal | 2021 |
MESSRS BRONX INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI VS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PC A, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Ss. 3, 29 (2) & 42B Customs Act 1969 S.194-A(4) Ss.18, 26, 26A, 32(2)(3) & 202 Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 148 & 228 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.6 30, 31 & 32-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25 Notification SRO No.371 (I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, Sr.3(ii) | coram non judice |
No official of Directorate of PCA was empowered to conduct audit in the matter of Federal Excise and Income Tax without powers / justification---Any such audit was void ab-initio and coram non judice---Clearance Collectorates did not have authority to collect Read More... |
2021 PTD 51 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2021 |
MESSRS UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD. LAHORE
VS THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE. LTU, LAHORE |
Federal Excise Act 2005 S.7 & 44 Sales Tax Act 1990 S.66 | Refund of excise duty to be claimed within one year |
Appellant paid Federal Excise Duty on its supplies of locally purchased raw material for production of cooking oil under S.7 of Federal Excise Act, 2005, under sales tax mode---Appellant claimed refund of excise duty but the refund of the appellant was considered as Read More... |
2021 PTD 150 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2021 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MESSRS SAMSOL INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 34A | findings of facts |
Where order of Appellate Tribunal was based on findings of facts, after detailed discussion, deliberation and interpretation of provisions of law and as such did not carry any mistake apparent on record, then same did not require any interference by High Court while Read More... |
2021 PTD 155 (2021) 124 TAX 540 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2021 |
M/S ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS VS THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (P&A) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 S.41 & 14 Civil Procedure Code 1908 S.9 Specific Relief Act 1877 S.42 & 12 | Show cause without lawful authority |
Suit filed in the (Sindh) High Court in its original civil jurisdiction against an Order, Notification relating to a taxing statute-Bar to jurisdiction of "civil courts" under ouster clause in S.41 of Federal Excise Act, 2005-Implied bar Read More... |
2021 PTD 281 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2020 |
MESSRS AL-KHAIR GADOON LTD. VS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) S: 4(1)(2), 35 Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944 S: R. 7, 9, 210, 223(6), 294 | Procedural laws & Rules |
Olas Khan v. Chairman NAB (PLD 2018 SC 40) In this case, while commenting on the erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in a matter of bail, it was observed that: "it is now settled position in law that merely citing or Read More... |
2020 PTD 18 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2020 |
MESSRS AL-KHAIR GADOON LTD. VS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) S: 4(1)(2), 35 Law: Central Excise Rules, 1944 S: R. 7, 9, 210, 223(6), 294 | Show cause notice & incorrect provision of law |
Incorrect provision of law mentioned in the notice---Effect- --Quoting of wrong provisions of law in a show cause notice would not necessarily vitiate the entire process initiated thereunder---In deciding the legal validity of the show Read More... |
2020 PTD 18 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2020 |
M/s. Shah Sons Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. VS The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad |
Establishment Of Office Of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 9(2)(A), 2(3) & 10 | application for revision in sales tax return |
Record showed that application of complainant for revision in sales tax return was pending for three months and no action was taken by Dept. despite follow-up reminders---Delay in disposal of complainant's application was evident, which Read More... |
2020 PTD 1029 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2019 |
SAJJAD AHMED VS The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 2(3)(b)(ii), 9(2)(b), 10(1)(4 | Refund of tax amount/ delay in |
Refund of tax amount, delay in-Taxpayer was aggrieved of delay in process of his tax refund- Indeed--Objections raised under S.9(2)(b) of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 was misconceived as taxpayer had already availed legal remedy Read More... |
2019 PTD 1198 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2019 |
M/S. SHAHZADI POLYPROPYLENE INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT AND 4 OTHERS |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)Ss . 9 & 32 Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) Ss. 170 & 120---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) S.3 & proviso | Income tax refund |
Complaint against non-issuance of income tax refund---Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in relation to cases of tax refund---Intra-court appeal---Maintainability---Petitioner’s complaint before the Federal Tax Ombudsman regarding non-issuance of income tax Read More... |
2017 PTD 2019 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2018 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, KARACHI
VS M/S. SECURITY LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI |
Federal Excise Act 2005 S. 14(1). Federal Excise Rules, 2005, Rr.40-A(4) & 45. S.R.O. No. 475(I)/ 2009, dated 13-6-2009 | Leasing activities/Levy of federal excise duty |
Appellant/taxpayer was engaged in the business of leasing----Tax Officer, held appellant liable to federal excise duty under Third Sched., Table II, Item 8 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 for the period 2007 to 2011 and levied federal excise duty Read More... |
2018 PTD 1391 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2018 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD
VS M/S. WITRIBE, ISLAMABAD |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 S. 3, 16, 34A & Sched |
Telecommunication services---Internet services---Scope---Question before the High Court was whether an internet service provider was liable to pay federal excise duty which was imposed with regard to voice / telephonic content of internet Read More... |
2018 PTD 1413 2020 PTCL 582 |
||
Peshawar High Court | 2018 |
CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE VS M/S CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE & 2 OTHERS |
Interpretation of statutes | Amendment |
Any amendment introduced in law has prospective effect, unless the amendment expressly provides for it to have retrospective Read More... |
2018 PTD 1617 (2018)118 TAX 339 2018 PTCL 325 |
|
Peshawar High Court | 2018 |
CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE VS M/S CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD, THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE & 2 OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act 2005 S. 46(5) [as inserted by Finance Act 2015] Central Excise Act 1944 S.3-D Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 S. 9(2) & 32 Constitutional of Pakistan, Art. 199 | Constitutional petition/Locus standi/Excise duty, refund of |
Retrospective effect of amendment in the statue (Federal Excise Act, 2005)---Scope---Dispute was with regard to refund of Excise Duty paid by respondent companies---Federal Tax Ombudsman directed respondent companies to get audit conducted Read More... |
2018 PTD 1617 (2018)118 TAX 339 2018 PTCL 325 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2017 |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS VS M/S. SAHIB JEE AND OTHERS |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 Ss. 11 & 32 | Reference to the President |
Reference to the President against recommendation of Ombudsman---Scope---When the Revenue Division or any person was aggrieved of a recommendation made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in terms of S.11 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Read More... |
2017 PTD 1481 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2017 |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS VS M/S. SAHIB JEE AND OTHERS |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 Ss. 14(8) | Reference to the President |
Federal Tax Ombudsman---Review, power of---Scope---Section 14(8) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 empowered the Ombudsman to review any finding communicated or recommendation made or any order passed by him---Said power of Read More... |
2017 PTD 1481 |
|
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal | 2017 |
M/S. BANK ISLAMI PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI VS The C.I.R., AUDIT UNIT-4 ZONE-II, LTU, KARACHI |
Federal Excise Act 2005 Ss. 36 & 37 | Stay order |
Recovery of tax---Application for stay order---Scope---Rectification of stay order---Scope---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue could not rectify stay order under S.36, Federal Excise Act, 2005 Matter of stay being purely discretionary in nature---Where the taxpayer Read More... |
2017 PTD 1517 |
|
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal | 2017 |
M/S. BANK ISLAMI PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI VS The C.I.R., AUDIT UNIT-4 ZONE-II, LTU, KARACHI |
Federal Excise Act 2005 Ss. 36 & 37 | Stay of recovery; injunction |
“Stay of recovery of tax” and “injunction”---Distinction---Appeal and rectification proceedings---Procedure---Appellate powers of the Tribunal---Scope---“Order of stay” would take effect immediately on being passed, even of it was not brought/served to Read More... |
2017 PTD 1517 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2017 |
M/S. SHAHEEN CLOTH PROCESSING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 Ss. 9(2)(a), 2(3) & 10 Sales Tax Act 1990 Ss. 47, 66 & 67 | Sales tax refund |
Complaint against non-issuance of sales tax refund---Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Maladministration---Scope---Matter sub judice before High Court---Effect---Contention of the Department was that per S.9(2)(a) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Read More... |
2017 PTD 1556 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2017 |
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT OF FORWARD ASSOCIATION VS PROVINCE OF SINDH AND OTHERS |
Interpretation of statutes | Taxing event is fundamental to all fiscal statutes |
(k) Federal Excise of 2005--- ---S.3, First Schedule, Table II---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.3---Sindh Sales Tax Act (XII of 2011), S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199, 270AA (7), Fourth Schedule, Federal List, entries Nos. 44, 49 Read More... |
2017 PTD 1 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2017 |
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT AND 2 OTHERS |
Establishment of the Officer of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 S. 32 | Representation to the president of Pakistan |
Representation to the President of Pakistan--- Limitation 30 days to file representation to the President under S.32 of the Establishment of the Officer of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Valid grounds for condonation of delay---Scope---Representation filed Read More... |
2017 PTD 2011 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2017 |
M/S. TELENOR PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005) -Ss. 7, 3 & Sched. Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 270AA, 142, 199 & Forth Sched.--Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R. 43---S.R.O. No. 550(I)/ 2006 dated 05.06.2006 | Telecommunication services |
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 270AA, 142, 199 & Forth Sched.---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R. 43---S.R.O. No. 550(I)/ 2006 dated 05.06.2006---Declaration and continuances of laws after the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment with regard to collection of levy / Read More... |
2017 PTD 2269 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2017 |
MESSRS PIONEER CABLES LIMITED, KARACHI VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10 Customs Act 1969 Ss. 33 & 18 | Refund of Customs Duty |
Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Maladministration---Scope---Complaint against delay in refund of Customs Duty and imposition of additional Customs Duty---Contention of Department was that delay in refund was on account of Read More... |
2017 PTD 2485 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
Urban Developers Associates VS Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc. |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 9, | Intendment or presumption on interpretation of law/ Payment of duty |
Payment of duty---Liability---Intendment or presumption on interpretation of law---Scope---Bank account of petitioner was attached on the basis of alleged tax demand raised by authorities---Validity---Person sought to be taxed could only be taxed when he come within Read More... |
2016 PTD 2242 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
Urban Developers Associates VS Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc. |
Interpretation of statutes - | Fiscal statute |
Two interpretations---Charging section of a fiscal statue is key and pivotal provision, which imposes a fiscal liability upon a taxpayer/person thus it should be strictly construed and applied, so far the revenue is concerned---Where a provision is susceptible to Read More... |
2016 PTD 2242 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2016 |
DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD VS MASTER TILES AND CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. G.T. ROAD GUJRANWALA and 3 others |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 14(8), 13 & 9 | Review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman |
Review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope---Department, by way of review of impugned order, sought expunction of remarks made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in the impugned order, on the ground that the said remarks were contradictory, as the Federal Tax Read More... |
2016 PTD 1443 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2016 |
DIRECTOR GENERAL, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD VS MASTER TILES AND CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD. G.T. ROAD GUJRANWALA and 3 others |
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 14(8) | Scope of review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman |
Scope of review of findings of Federal Tax Ombudsman under S.14 of the Establishment of the Officer Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Concreted effort to re-argue the entire case and introduction of new issues which were not raised in the original complaint, Read More... |
2016 PTD 1443 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2016 |
PETITIONER(S): PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD.
VS RESPONDENT(S): FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005) 46 | Audit /Powers of Commissioner and FBR |
Audit---Powers of Commissioner and Federal Board of Revenue---Giving of advance notice---Purpose, object and scope---Board as well as Commissioner are empowered to conduct audit of the record and documents of any person registered under Federal Excise Act, 2005, Read More... |
2016 PTD 1484 (2017)115 TAX 27 2016 PTCL 302 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
Messrs KASHMIR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS FEDERATION through Secretary Revenue and others |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005) 3 & 42 | Recovery of federal excise duty |
Recovery of federal excise duty---Show cause notice---Interpretation of any provision by Federal Board of Revenue---Scope---Petitioner was aggrieved of show cause notice issued by adjudicating authority and consequential orders-in-original passed as consequence of Read More... |
2016 PTD 1649 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
PUNJAB BEVERAGES CO. (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager Finance VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and others |
Interpretation of statutes | Statute; Administrative instructions |
“Statute” and “administrative instructions”---Conflict---Scope---In case of conflict between a statute and instructions of Department, instructions/orders of the department are to be ignored and statute law has to be Read More... |
2016 PTD 1736 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
PUNJAB BEVERAGES CO. (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager Finance VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and others |
Interpretation of statutes | Statute; Administrative instructions |
“Statute” and “administrative instructions”---Conflict---Scope---In case of conflict between a statute and instructions of Department, instructions/orders of the department are to be ignored and statute law has to be Read More... |
2016 PTD 1736 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2016 |
PUNJAB BEVERAGES CO. (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager Finance VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and others |
Federal Excise Act, 2005--- ---Federal Excise Rules, 2005 2(12a)---. R.43-A(I)---S.R.O.No.561(I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006 | Franchise services |
Franchise services---Proof---Federal Excise Duty, recovery of---Show cause notice---Alternate remedy---Petitioner company assailed show cause notice issued for recovery of Federal Excise Duty on the ground of franchiser and franchisee relationship---Plea raised by Read More... |
2016 PTD 1736 |
|
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal | 2016 |
GARDEN TOWN, PHASE-II, GUJRANWALA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA |
Federal Excise Act, 2005 4, 8, 14, 19(1) | Failure to file monthly returns |
Liability to pay Federal Excise Duty---Limitation---Failure to file monthly returns---Registered person, engaged in the business of property development and construction of residential/commercial units, was under legal obligation to file monthly Read More... |
2016 PTD 2362 |
|
Islamabad High Court | 2016 |
Messrs PAKTEL LTD., ISLAMABAD VS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX , RAWALPINDI |
Central Excise Act, (I of 1944) 3,36-C,First Schedule | Central excise duty, recovery of |
Central excise duty, recovery of---“Telephone”---Definition---Scope---Mobile telephone---Appellant was a company engaged in business of cellular phones and was aggrieved of show cause notice raising demand of recovery of central excise duty---Validity---Mobile Read More... |
2016 PTD 1754 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2015 |
DEPUTY DIRECTORCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR VS FARMAN ALI and others |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) Ss. 9-A & 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3) | Complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. |
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether complaint mentioned in S. 9-A(6) of Central Excise Act, 1994, by which Special Judge, could take cognizance, was to be equated with “complaint” under S. 200, Cr.P.C. and thus procedure thereunder Read More... |
2015 PTD 1457 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2015 |
DEPUTY DIRECTORCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR VS FARMAN ALI and others |
Central Excise Act, (I of 1944) --S. 13 | Inquiry into offence |
Inquiry into offence---Procedure---Comprehensive procedure had been provided under S. 13 of Central Excise Act, 1944, for inquiry into an offence committed under Central Excise Act, 1944, right up to filing of complaint before Special Read More... |
2015 PTD 1457 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2015 |
DEPUTY DIRECTORCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR VS FARMAN ALI and others |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 13 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 | Arrest and detention |
Arrest and detention---Non-registration of FIR---Effect---Absence of FIR does not, in any way, take away or affect powers of Central Excise Officer to arrest an accused under Central Excise Act, 1944, to carry out inquiry into an offence and to file complaint before Read More... |
2015 PTD 1457 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2015 |
DEPUTY DIRECTORCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR VS FARMAN ALI and others |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 13 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 200 | Arrest and detention |
Complaint to Special Judge---Format---Nature of complaint to be filed by Central Excise Officer to Special Judge for trial of accused, has been equated with police report submitted by officer in charge of police station under S. 173, Cr.P.C.---Such complaint is not Read More... |
2015 PTD 1457 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2015 |
DEPUTY DIRECTORCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR VS FARMAN ALI and others |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--- ----S. 9-A & 13 | Arrest and detention |
Arrest and detention---Inquiry into offence---Scope---Case registered against accused under Central Excise Act, 1944, was declared without lawful authority by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction---Validity---Initiation of criminal proceedings, Read More... |
2015 PTD 1457 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2015 |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXWEALTH TAX VS Mst. Asma Jilani and Others |
Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963) S. 2(1)(5)(ii) Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17 | Association of persons; Transfer of property; Arbitration award/agreement |
Association of persons (AOP)---Transfer of property---Arbitration award/agreement---Authorities did not accept arbitration award/agreement of the plea that the same had not conferred any ownership right on individuals/shareholders, unless the deed was registered Read More... |
2015 PTD 2236 (2015) 112 TAX 22 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2015 |
RISHAD CHOUDRI and others
VS CANTONMENT BOARD, KARACHI through Chief Executive and others |
Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 77, 99(2)(b) & 259---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 | Trust property being used for charitable activities |
Property tax in case of building---Exemption---Scope---Constitutional petition---Trust property being used for charitable activities---Remission of property tax and conservancy tax on such property granted by Cantonment Board from 1-7-1987 to 30-6-2004---Withdrawal Read More... |
2014 PTD 136 2014 PLD 1 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2015 |
RISHAD CHOUDRI and others
VS CANTONMENT BOARD, KARACHI through Chief Executive and others |
Cantonments Act (II of 1924)--- ----Ss. 77, 99(2)(b) & 259---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199 | Important question of law |
Constitutional petition based on important question of law of public importance---Maintainability---Such question could be raised directly before High Court and constitutional petition was maintainable in Read More... |
2014 PTD 136 2014 PLD 1 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
INAMULLAH VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, Islamabad court |
Establishment of Officer of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) Ss. 2(3), 9(2)(a) & 10(1)(4) Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XX | Seizure and confiscation of smuggled goods |
Seizure and confiscation of smuggled goods---Maladministration---Allegedly smuggled goods were seized along with the truck carrying those goods by Anti-Smuggling Organization---Adjudicatory Authority, confiscated said goods and penalty of Rs.100,000 was also imposed Read More... |
2015 PTD 2279 (2015) 113 TAX 30 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
Messrs DESCON OXYCHEM LTD., LAHORE VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, (XXXV of 2000)--- Ss. 2(3) & 10--- Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 10 & 67---Sales Tax Rules, 2006, R. 26A(7) | Sales tax refunds |
Complaint against non-issuance of sales tax refunds and delay in issuance of sales tax refunds---Maladministration---Additional payment (compensation) for delay in payment of refund claims---Contention of taxpayer inter alia was that Department was deliberately Read More... |
2015 PTD 2331 |
|
Lahore High Court | 2015 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS M/S ISLAM STEEL MILLS |
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) Ss. 161, 160 & 153 | Obligation of Department and taxpayers |
Failure to pay tax collected or deducted---Obligation of Department and taxpayers---Taxpayers were served with show-cause notice under S.161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for failure to pay tax deducted as withholding agents---Contention of tax payers was that Read More... |
2015 PTD 2335 (2015)111 TAX 272 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
Messrs NIAZI CNG COMPANY
VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----Ss. 2(3) & 10--- Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) Ss. 127 & 170 | complainant |
Complaint against non-issuance of income tax refund---Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope---Contention of Department was that the complainant ought to have filed appeal before the first statutory Appellate forum and there was no cause for him to file Read More... |
2015 PTD 2348 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
Messrs NIAZI CNG COMPANY
VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) -Ss. 2(3) & 10---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) ----Ss. 2(3) & 10--- Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) Ss. 234A, 235, & 147--- | Income tax refund |
Non-issuance of income tax refund claim in relation to advance tax paid under S. 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on electricity bills by the complainant, which was CNG station---Validity---Tax deducted under S. 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was Read More... |
2015 PTD 2348 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
ALI MANSOOR KHAN
VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) Ss. 2(3) & 10(1) | Jurisdiction of FTO |
Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope---Maladministration--- Fraudulently prepared document---Complaint against unauthorized CNIC access and unilateral issuance of NTN and subsequent amendment therein by the Department---Contention of complainant was Read More... |
2015 PTD 2401 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
Ch. SHAHID MEHMOOD
VS SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) S. 10 Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S.114(6)--- | Filing of revised income tax revised returns |
Filing of revised income tax revised income tax returns---Obtaining written permission of Commissioner for filing revised income tax returns---Income tax refund---Complaint of maladministration on part of Income Tax Authorities for non-issuance of income tax Read More... |
2015 PTD 2443 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2015 |
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--- ----Ss. 2(3) & 10--- Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) Ss. 170(4), 171 & 120 | refund |
Non-issuance of tax refund---Maladministration---Scope---Contention of complainant/taxpayer was that despite completing all legal procedures and requirements, Department had failed to issue refund---Contention of Department was that the said claim of refund was Read More... |
2015 PTD 2558 (2016)113 TAX 27 |
|
Federal Tax Ombudsman | 2014 |
Messrs S.R. ENTERPRISES VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013) Ss. 18 & 28 Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9(1) | maladministration was a predominant feature |
Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Federal Tax Ombudsman holds “concurrent jurisdiction without restraint” in all cases involving maladministration by Federal Board of Revenue functionaries---Taxpayer had the option to go either Read More... |
2014 PTD 104 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-V, LARGE TAXPAYER, KARACHI VS MESSRS FARAN SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----S. 34-A | Jurisdiction of High Court |
---Reference to High Court---Jurisdiction of High Court under S. 34A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005---Scope---While exercising jurisdiction under S. 34A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 only such questions could be answered by the High Court which were questions of Read More... |
2014 PTD 999 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2014 |
VS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944)------S. 33(3)--- Central Excise Rules 1944, Rr. 10 & 226(2)---S.R.O. 499(I)/93 dated 14-6-1993 | Power of adjudication---Limitation |
---Power of adjudication---Limitation---Show-Cause Notice was issued on 5-7-2001---As per provision of S.33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as relevant, on the date the order was mandated to be finalized within 45 days of the issuance of Show-Cause Notice within Read More... |
2014 PTD 1034 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
Messrs CITIBANK NA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(16a)(23), 3, 16(1) & First Sched. Table-II, Entry No.8--- Customs Act (IV of 1969), First Sched. Heading No. 98.13 | transactions of insurance commission |
Services provided by Financial Institutions i.e. transactions of insurance commission---Liability to pay excise duty on such transaction for period from January to June 2007---Validity---Services specified only in First Sched. of Federal Excise Act, 2005 would be Read More... |
2014 PTD 284 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2014 |
VS |
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 254--- Central Excise Act (1 of 1944) S.33(3) | Act, Failure to comply with requirement |
---Central Excise Act (1 of 1944) S.33(3)---Failure to comply with requirement as to time does not render an act invalid---Scope---Article 254 of the Constitution of Pakistan only relates to “any act or things required by Constitution to be done within a Read More... |
2014 PTD 1034 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
Messrs CITIBANK NA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(16a)(23), 3, 16(1) & First Sched. Table-II, Entry No. 8--- Customs Act (IV of 1969), First Sched. Heading No. 98.13 | Services provided by Bank |
Services provided by Bank i.e. merchant discounts on use of credit-card by its holder---Liability to pay excise duty on such services for period from January to June 2007---Validity---Services only specified in First Sched. of Federal Excise Act, 2005 would be Read More... |
2014 PTD 284 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2014 |
VS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944)-- ---S.33(3) | Failure to comply with requirement as to time does not render an act invalid |
--Cement factory---Contravention report of short production---Effect---Audit was conducted of 13 quarters and chose five quarters to work out contravention of alleged evasion of short production of Clinker---Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO) had made elementary Read More... |
2014 PTD 1034 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
Messrs CITIBANK NA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(16a)(23), 3, 16(1) & First Sched. Table-II, Entry No. 8 | Services provided by Bank |
Services provided by Bank i.e. merchant discounts on use of credit-card by its holder---Liability to pay excise duty on such services foe period from July, 2007 to December, 2008---Validity---Service No.11 listed in Entry 8 of First Sched. of Federal Excise Act, Read More... |
2014 PTD 284 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
Messrs CITIBANK NA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another |
Interpretation of statutes | Two reasonable interpretations |
Fiscal statutes---Charging provision would be applied as same stood, and there would be no intendment or equity regarding thereto. Fiscal statutes---Two reasonable interpretations of a provision being possible---Effect---Interpretation favouring taxpayer would Read More... |
2014 PTD 284 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2014 |
Messrs CITIBANK NA VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and another |
Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--- ----Ss. 2(16a)(23), 3, 16(1) & First Sched. Table-II, Entry No.8---State Bank of Pakistan Circular Letter No.21/EPP-1(96) Poly-2000 dated 28-7-2000 | Services provided by Bank |
Services provided by Bank in respect of speedy cash home remittances received in Pakistan from abroad---Liability of Bank to pay excise duty on such services---Validity---Bank for such remittances had not charged anything from remitters, but had received amount Read More... |
2014 PTD 284 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2013 |
Syed NUSRAT NASIR
VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others |
Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 Ss: 2(1),3(2),9,9(1), 9(2), 10,13, 14, & 32 10,9 | Aggrieved person | release of a vehicle |
Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Complaint against maladministration---Aggrieved person---Scope---Petitioner while performing his duties as Additional Collector (Preventive) Customs made order for release of Read More... |
2013 PTD 486 108 TAX 414 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2013 |
Syed NUSRAT NASIR
VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others |
Interpretation of Statute | Public Functionaries/ jurisdiction |
--Authorities performing functions under any statute were required to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law by remaining within the domain and jurisdiction as vested in them under the Read More... |
2013 PTD 486 108 TAX 414 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2013 |
Syed NUSRAT NASIR
VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others |
Interpretation of statutes 10,9 | law was required |
----Every law was required to be administrated in such a manner that it may foster the purpose of such legislation and shall not, in any manner, frustrate the Read More... |
2013 PTD 486 108 TAX 414 |
|
Sindh High Court | 2013 |
Syed NUSRAT NASIR
VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others |
Interpretation of statutes | law was required |
Every law was required to be administrated in such a manner that it may foster the purpose of such legislation and shall not, in any manner, frustrate the Read More... |
2013 PTD 486 108 TAX 414 |
|
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue | 2001 |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS FIRST LEASING CO. OF INDIA LTD. |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) First Sched, Item No. 04.03 | Pigment/ chemical/ manufacture of pigments |
Red lead/ Litharge—Pigment or chemical—Litharge by itself was a pigment but a chemical that was used in the manufacture of pigments/ Red lead in view of its high toxicity was a dying pigment and was seldom used. First Sched, Item Read More... |
2001 PTD 1799 |
|
Supreme Court of Pakistan | 2001 |
COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE AND OTHERS VS MESSRS RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE AND OTHERS |
Central Excise Act (I of 1944) S.4(2) | Retail Price |
Constitution Read More... |
2001 PTD 1854 2004 PTCL 298 |
|
Supreme Court of India | 2001 |
PAPER PRODUCTS LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE |
Indian Central Excise Act, 1944 S. 37B | Circular are binding on Department |
Circular/ Effect—Circular are binding on Department/ Correctness of circulars cannot be challenged by Department even on the ground of their being inconsistent with statutory provision/ Indian Central Excise Act, 1944, S.37B. Apart from the fact that Read More... |
2001 PTD 2253 247 ITR 128 |