The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR vs TARIQ MEHMOOD art — 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR VS TARIQ MEHMOOD art.25---Fiscal statute---Discrimination---Reasonable classification--Scope---In the context of article 25 of the Constitution, the courts gave a relatively greater latitude to the State in fiscal legislation in terms of selecting the persons liable to tax (or exemption), the objects of taxation, the methods employed and as to the rates of taxation---However, the latitude so granted was not infinitely elastic and it was not as though the courts regarded taxation to be wholly beyond the purview of art. 25. Citation Name: 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR VS TARIQ MEHMOOD art.25---Discrimination---Reasonable classification---Scope---article 25 of the Constitution allowed for reasonable classification, which was one that was based on intelligible differentia, which must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Citation Name: 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR VS TARIQ MEHMOOD Right of appeal---Scope---Such right was a substantive right, which had to be conferred by statute. Citation Name: 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR VS TARIQ MEHMOOD Ss. 122C [since omitted] & 127(1) [as amended by the Finance Act (XVII of 2012) and before its amendment by the Finance Act (XXVII of 2017)]---Finance Act (XVII of 2012), S. 15(25)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Section 15(25) of the Finance Act, 2012, vires of---Provisional assessment order made by the Commissioner---No right of appeal against such order to the Commissioner (Appeals) under S. 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the time period falling between the Finance Act, 2012 and the Finance Act, 2017---Constitutionality---Held, that no intelligible differentiae existed that distinguished, insofar as the right of appeal under S. 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the 2001 Ordinance') was concerned, taxpayers who fell in the period between the Finance Act, 2012 and the Finance Act, 2017 from the taxpayers who came in the other periods---Furthermore, the differentiation created as a result of Finance Act, 2012 did not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by S. 122C of the 2001 Ordinance---Change made to S. 127(1) of the 2001 Ordinance by the Finance Act, 2012 was discriminatory within the meaning of Art. 25 of the Constitution and being in violation of the fundamental right so conferred was liable to be struck down---Subsection (25) of S. 15 of Finance Act, 2012 was declared to be ultra vires the Constitution---Resultantly the Supreme Court declared that at all times material for present purposes the right of appeal under S. 127(1) of the 2001 Ordinance had the form that it took as a result of Finance Act, 2011, and that tax-payers falling in the time period between the Finance Act, 2012 and the Finance Act, 2017, also had a right of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under S. 127 of the 2001 Ordinance---Appeals were dismissed. Citation Name: 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR VS TARIQ MEHMOOD Ss.121, 122C [since omitted] & 127 [as amended by the Finance Act (XXVII of 2017), Finance Act (XVII of 2012), Finance Act (XVI of 2011) and Finance Act (XVI of 2010)]---Best judgment assessment/provisional assessment order/final assessment order made by the Commissioner---Right of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under S. 127 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Scope---Prior to Finance Act, 2010, when S. 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the 2001 Ordinance') alone was in the field, there was a right of appeal against a best judgment assessment---Between the Finance Act, 2010 and Finance Act, 2011, when S. 122C of the 2001 Ordinance was brought in but S. 127 remained untouched, the right of appeal remained unaffected---Right of appeal existed against either the provisional assessment order or the (deemed) final assessment---Effect of Finance Act, 2011 was to take away the right of appeal against the provisional assessment order, but the right against the (deemed) final assessment remained unaffected---Purported effect of Finance Act, 2012 was to take away altogether the right of appeal against any order/assessment made under S.122C---Finally, Finance Act, 2017 restored the position (with respect to right of appeal) to what it had been prior to Finance Act, 2010.

The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR vs TARIQ MEHMOOD art — 2021 PTD 578 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PTD