D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss

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

D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss. 25 & 72-B---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 177 & 214-C---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Audit---Powers, exercise of---Directions of Federal Board of Revenue---Effect---Petitioner company was aggrieved of proceedings initiated in terms of S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 and S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in the wake of Federal Board of Revenue instructions/directions issued to Chief Commissioner and other field formations---Validity---These are independent power of audit of the Commissioner and FBR with separate methodology enumerated in law---Commissioner, under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 is required to apply his independent mind to each taxpayer's individual case and if he decides to select a taxpayer for audit, he must give mindful and legitimate reasons arising out from record---On the other hand, purpose of S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 72-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is to ensure general compliance of law by taxpayers---Federal Board of Revenue under S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 72-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990 may select a person for audit through random parametric ballot---There was no room in S. 214-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 or S.72-B of Sales Tax Act, 1990 for FBR to direct Commissioner to select assessee for audit under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 or S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Such direction amounted to usurping independent power of Commissioner under S.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Federal Board of Revenue interfered in independent statutory duty and discretion of Commissioners under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Federal Board of Revenue not only gave directives to initiate sector wise audit across the board but also gave the authorities time lines for various steps commencing from selection for audit till passing of assessment orders---Such time line interfered with independent power of Commissioners, who might or might not have selected individual tax payers for audit on the basis of their income tax or sales tax returns on individual basis---Division Bench of High Court declared that income tax and sales tax audit proceedings initiated on the basis of directives issued by FBR were without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Commissioner concerned was not precluded from exercising his/her independent authority under S. 177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and S. 25 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 to proceed afresh in individual cases strictly in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 5350 - 5400 Citation Name: 2025 PTD 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Exercise of---Principle---While exercising discretion, the authority has to maintain independence and impartiality---Authority upon whom discretionary power has been conferred, cannot act at the dictates of a higher and other authority---When discretion is conferred upon the authority, it is that authority alone which has to exercise discretion by its own independent mind after taking into consideration all relevant factors and the object of conferring such a discretion---Such authority should not be influenced by improper motive or improper purpose and must not allow its personal interest and beliefs to influence it in the exercise of its statutory powers, but must exercise such powers impartially and should not pre-judge the case---Even the higher authority cannot provide any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute, to act in a particular manner---Quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction of a superior officer or authority---Once a discretion is vested with a certain authority, it alone should exercise that discretion vested under the statute and if it acts in accordance with "the direction or any compliance with some higher authorities instruction" it would be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. Citation Name: 2025 PTD 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE art. 114---Estoppel, principle of---applicability---Once an authority takes a particular plea of defence in one High Court, then that authority is bound by that plea and cannot be allowed to take an altogether different stance in another provincial High Court in similar matters---Principle of "estoppel" is applicable in such like situation.

D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs The FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Ss — 2025 PTD 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD