K-ELECTRIC LIMITED vs PAKISTAN, through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and Director General Ss

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

K-ELECTRIC LIMITED VS PAKISTAN, through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and Director General Ss.176, 207, 230(2)(b) & 235B---SRO 115(I)/2015 dated 09-02-2015, vires of---Plaintiff (Electricity Distribution Company) received Notice followed by a Reminder under S. 176 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001') calling upon it to provide party-wise details/date/information in relation to income tax collected and deposited by it from Steel Melters, [re-rollers] or composite units under S. 235B of the Ordinance, 2001 from July 2014 to December 2019---Case set-up by the plaintiff / company was primarily that the conferring powers of Officers Inland Revenue on Officers of the General Intelligence and Investigation (Inland Revenue) ('DG I&I'), vide SRO 115(I)/2015 was ultra vires the Ordinance, 2001, thus the impugned notice under S. 176 of the Ordinance, 2001 issued by the DG I&l was without jurisdiction ; and that it was the Additional Director-III of the DGI&I who had territorial jurisdiction in the matter, whereas the impugned notice simply stated to have been issued by an "Additional Director"---Stance of the Department was that the impugned notice had in fact been issued by the Additional Director-III and the omission of "III" was only a typographical error---Validity---Though S. 176 of the Ordinance, 2001 designated the Commissioner Inland Revenue to issue notice thereunder, the impugned notice was issued by the Additional Director of the DG I&I apparently in exercise of powers conferred by the FBR under SRO 115(I)/2015 dated 09-02-2015 issued under S. 230 of the Ordinance, 2001---Subsection (2)(b) of S. 230 of the Ordinance, 2001 empowers the FBR to "confer the powers of authorities specified in S. 207 upon the Directorate General and its officers"; the authorities specified in S. 207 of the Ordinance, 2001 included the Commissioner Inland Revenue---Regarding relevant issue that SRO 115(I)/2015 dated 09-02-2015 (the SRO) was ultra vires the Ordinance, 2001, the plaintiff had acknowledged that a challenge to the vires of said SRO on a similar ground had been dealt with and rejected by Sindh High Court in case Suit No. 1872/2016 titled Saleem Butt v. Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division vide judgment dated 31.05.2021 ; to that extent the plaintiff conceded to the judgment in same terms---Therefore, SRO 115(I)/2015 dated 09-02-2015 was not ultra vires the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Resultantly, the impugned notice under S. 176 of the Ordinance, 2001, the amending notification dated 24-03-2016 and the transfer/posting notification dated 14-02-2019, all were issued with lawful authority---Name (Tarique Hussain Tunio) of the Additional Director, DG I&I, who issued the impugned notice was mentioned---Relevant jurisdiction order issued by the DGI&I, annexed to the written-statement, showed that the same name person was designated as Additional Director-III---Thus, the omission of "III" was only a typographical error---Both issues were answered in the negative and against the plaintiff---Suit, filed by company, was dismissed.

K-ELECTRIC LIMITED vs PAKISTAN, through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and Director General Ss — 2025 PTD 55 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD