UNITED CARPETS LTD. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division) Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad S — 2025 PTD 267 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 PTD 267 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PTD
Parties: UNITED CARPETS LTD. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division) Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad S
Subject matter: Tax & Customs
Provisions referred to: S. 214D; S. 177; S. 122; Finance Act; Income Tax Ordinance

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

UNITED CARPETS LTD. VS PAKISTAN through Secretary (Revenue Division) Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad S.214D 1(a) & (b) [inserted through Finance Act, 2015 and deleted through Finance Act, 2018]---Audit proceedings, selection for---Scope---Petitioners (Taxpayers) filed constitutional petitions assailing impugned notices issued under S. 214D read with 177 or 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') as being unlawful on the ground that said S.214D had already been repealed---Validity---There was no question of exercising any power or authority under a repealed or omitted provision inasmuch as the petitioners stood selected for audit by way of a deeming provision and to that extent, it was not in dispute that the petitioners were to be selected for audit in terms thereof as they were covered by the two basic conditions provided in S.214D(1)(a) & (b)---Petitioners had not been selected after omission or deletion of S. 214D but they stood selected automatically---The subsequent action of the Department on the basis of impugned notices was procedural in nature which was under the existing procedure of S.177 of the Ordinance, 2001 (manner in which audit has to be conducted), and thereafter, under S. 122 (amendment of a deemed assessment order)---Both said provisions were very much in existence when impugned notices were issued---Mere narration of facts in the impugned notices as to why they had been selected for audit in terms of S. 214D of the Ordinance, 2001, would not ipso facto mean that any jurisdiction was now being exercised under the said provision which stood omitted---No right or vested right had accrued to the petitioners---Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD

2025 PTD 1833 BALOCHISTAN-SALES-TAX-ON-SERVICES-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL, QUETTACASING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER BALOCHISTAN REVENUE AUTHORITY. Ss. 2(115), 2(139), 25 & 27 - Balochistan Sales Tax on Serv…
2025 PTD 1230 SUPREME-COURTKASSIM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, KARACHI Literal rule---Legislation---Powers of Court---Where words of st…
2025 PTD 1179 SUPREME-COURTWAK LIMITED MULTAN ROAD, LAHORE VS COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE (NOW COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, LAHORE) Statutory d…
2025 PTD 1634 SUPREME-COURTThe DIRECTORATE OF POST CLEARANCE AUDIT through DG, FBR, Islamabad VS NESTLE PAKISTAN LIMITED, ISLAMABAD art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to…
2025 PTD 1270 SUPREME-COURTDIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION-FBR, through Director VS TAJ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. Ss. 2(37), 3, 11, 33 & 37a---assessment…
2025 PTD 1270 SUPREME-COURTDIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION-FBR, through Director VS TAJ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. Imposing of tax---Principle---Under mod…

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