PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-V), LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE Words in stat

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

PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-V), LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE Words in statute---Meaning---Principle---Words in a statute, in absence of express language to the contrary are to be given their ordinary and plain meaning. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 102 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-V), LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE S.2(12a)---Franchise---Necessary ingredients---To infer a franchise under S. 2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 necessary ingredients are namely, (i) authority by franchiser, (ii) resultant right acquired by franchisee, (iii) franchised service or product, (iv) fee therefor and (v) identification of product or service with franchiser. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 102 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-V), LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE Ss.2(12a) & 34-A---Reference---Franchise---Determination---Assessee was aggrieved of order passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue maintaining order of authorities and assessee was required to pay excise duty on services---Validity---Fee charged for technical services was not per se ground to infer a franchise, when neither S.2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005, so prescribed nor was such a business reality---Name 'technical fee' or 'fee for technical assistance' were mere convenient labels and no more---When two companies charged technical fee for telecommunication network support activities to mobile companies, software companies charge technical fee for customized software deployed in networks, a maintenance and operations service provider charged technical fee to solar power projects, none of such were franchise relationships---Franchise as defined in S.2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 based on label given in a company's accounts to fee received for services was tantamount to rewriting S.2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005, in its entirety---Television Channel in question was not a franchised service and was not caught by S.2(12a) of Federal Excise Act, 2005---Reference was allowed accordingly.

PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (AUDIT-V), LARGE TAXPAYERS OFFICE Words in statute — 2023 PTD 102 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD