COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss — 2022 PTD 1135 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation: 2022 PTD 1135 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court: Lahore High Court
Year: 2022
Reporter: PTD
Parties: COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 23---; S. 8; S. 20; S. 1; S. 23; Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979); Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002); General Clauses Act (X of 1897); Income Tax Ordinance; Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance; General Clauses Act

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

Judgment text as reported

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED Ss.20 & 133---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 23--- Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002), S. 8 (5)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.8(5), proviso---Repealed enactments---Construction and references to---Pricing for retail consumers for natural gas---Question was with regard to development surcharge as expense while computing income from business and expenditure under S.20 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Proviso was placed under S.8(5) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, as a precaution because Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had been promulgated by that time but was not enforced through notification, as required under S.1(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--- If proviso to S.8(5) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, was absent then it would have been a complete and clear for the purposes of allowance---Provision of S.8(5) of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, referred to S.23 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (since repealed) only for the purposes of computing profits and gains after declaring development surcharge as an allowance---Such was the case if S.20 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was read instead of S.23 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (since repealed), as the same was permissible under S.8 of General Clauses Act, 1897---High Court replied the question in affirmative in favour of respondent / taxpayer--- Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2022 PTD

2022 PTD 683 SUPREME-COURTNAUBAHAR BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Revenue Division Ministry of Finance Scope---Judgment is an autho…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad S.19---General power to exempt from customs…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad Precedent---Constitution of a larger Bench-…
2022 PTD 1860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIMAD SAMAD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad S.3---Power to prohibit or restrict imports…
2022 PTD 1665 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANNAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), RTO, FAISALABAD Ss. 3 & 7---Scope of sales tax---Determination…
2022 PTD 1010 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTANCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, RTO, FAISALABAD VS AL-SEHAR MANUFACTURER (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD S.45B---appeal---Inquiry---Scope---Com…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English