DATA RICE MILLS, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIANWALI ROAD, QUAIDABAD KHUSHAB vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (WITHHOLDING

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

DATA RICE MILLS, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIANWALI ROAD, QUAIDABAD KHUSHAB VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (WITHHOLDING ZONE), RTO, SARGODHA art.25---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 161---Identical cases---Tax authorities , treatment by---Equality of taxpayers---Scope---appellant referred to an order passed by the same assessing authority in another case regarding Rice Mills where the assessing officer accepted a commission rate of 0.5% for the Tax Year 2022, as per the order under S.161(1) of the Ordinance, 2001, however, in the appellant's case, the assessing officer adopted a higher commission rate of 1% merely stating that "each case has its own facts and circumstances"---Validity---Said reasoning ,against the appellant , is not convincing as both the appellant and another case / Rice Mills are engaged in the same rice milling business in the same region under the same tax jurisdiction---Therefore, the facts and circumstances of both cases are virtually identical---The inconsistency in treatment raises concerns of unequal and discriminatory treatment---Such arbitrary differentiation without justifiable grounds violates the principles of fairness and consistency in tax assessments---The tax authority must apply the law equitably, especially when the facts of both cases are essentially the same---The disparate treatment of the appellant compared to another case / Rice Mills is not only unjustifiable but also amounts to an arbitrary exercise of discretion, which is impermissible under the law---Said discriminatory approach is in violation of art. 25 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law---While art. 25 of Constitution allows for reasonable classification, it must be based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved---In the present case, no such difference exists between the two situations, making the differential treatment both illegal and unjustifiable---The tax department's acceptance of the same evidence in one case and rejection in the other constitutes a clear violation of art. 25 of Constitution and should be deemed unlawful---Thus, both the impugned order of the assessing officer and the CIR(a) are fundamentally flawed and beset with substantial legal defects---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside / annulled the impugned orders being without jurisdiction---appellant, filed by taxpayer, was accepted.

DATA RICE MILLS, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIANWALI ROAD, QUAIDABAD KHUSHAB vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (WITHHOLDING ZONE), RTO, SARGODHA art — 2025 PTD 1867 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD