PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE

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

PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S. 122a---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed], S. 138---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 199---Order in revision made by the Commissioner under section 122a of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 or section 138 of the erstwhile Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Such an order is not appealable before the appellate Tribunal---Only way therefore to challenge the same was and is by way of a Constitutional petition before the High Court. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 824 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S. 138---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Order in revision made by the Commissioner challenged before the High Court by way of a Constitutional petition---High Court to consider all grounds and questions of law raised in the memo of petition---In the present case, the petitioner took various legal grounds before the High Court challenging the order-in-revision and in respect of the same certain questions of law had also been raised---High Court ought to have considered all the various grounds and questions of law as set out in the memo of petition before it, rather than simply dismissing the Constitutional petition solely on the basis of one ground/submission---To this extent the matter had not been properly dealt with---High Court ought to have applied itself to the other grounds and questions of law as specifically taken in the memo of petition and given its findings on the same---In such circumstances it was appropriate that the matter be remanded to the High Court to consider those other grounds and questions of law as had been taken by the petitioner in its memo of petition---However the (sole) ground (on basis of which the Constitutional petition was rejected) that the order-in-revision by the Commissioner was non-speaking or was a simple recycling of the earlier order or had been made without proper application of mind (or any other similar ground) could not be agitated or taken by the petitioner and to such extent the determination made by the High Court must be regarded as having attained finality---Respondent department would be entitled to take all such objections and defences as were available to it in accordance with law---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and the matter was remanded to the High Court. Head NotesCase Description

PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA), WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S — 2022 SCMR 824 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR