Court | Year | Petitioner | Law/Section | Topic | Case Law | Citation/Ref. | View |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |