PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICER (RTO), MAYO ROAD, RAWALPINDI vs SARWAQ TRADERS, 216/1-A, ADAMJEE ROAD, RAWALPINDI Fiscal statute — 2022 SCMR 1333 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation
2022 SCMR 1333 SUPREME-COURT
Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year
2022
Reporter
SCMR
Parties
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICER (RTO), MAYO ROAD, RAWALPINDI vs SARWAQ TRADERS, 216/1-A, ADAMJEE ROAD, RAWALPINDI Fiscal statute
Subject matter
Tax & Customs
Provisions referred to
S. 45-B

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, ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICER (RTO), MAYO ROAD, RAWALPINDI VS SARWAQ TRADERS, 216/1-A, ADAMJEE ROAD, RAWALPINDI Fiscal statute---Provision in a fiscal statute---Whether mandatory or directory nature---Ultimate test to determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory is that of ascertaining the legislative intent---While the use of the word 'shall' is not the sole factor which determines mandatory or directory nature of a provision, it is certainly one of the indicators of legislative intent---Other factors include the presence of penal consequences in case of non-compliance, but perhaps the clearest indicator is the object and purpose of the statute and the provision in question---Court had to garner the real intent of the legislature as expressed in the law itself---Negative language used in a statute where it imposes a statutory duty on a public official means that the provision is mandatory even if no penalty is prescribed for it. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1333 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, REGIONAL TAX OFFICER (RTO), MAYO ROAD, RAWALPINDI VS SARWAQ TRADERS, 216/1-A, ADAMJEE ROAD, RAWALPINDI S. 45-B(2)--- appeal before Commissioner Inland Revenue (appeals)--- Maximum period of 180 days prescribed under section 45-2(B) of the Sales Tax act, 1990 for deciding the appeal---Such prescribed time period was mandatory---Obligation fixed on the Commissioner (appeals) by section 45-B(2) of the act to decide the matter within 180 days is mandatory and not directory---any decision made beyond the 180 days as prescribed under section 45-B(2) of the act, is an invalid decision. Head NotesCase Description

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR

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