SITARA DILDAR FUELS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2025 PTD 631 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

SITARA DILDAR FUELS (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 133 & 138(1) & 140---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 9---Appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue---Grant of stay---Period of stay---Computation---Contention of the Petitioner / tax-payer was that the respondent / Department , prior to the expiry of period of stay order dated 31.01.2023 granted by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal'), issued impugned notice on 01.03.2024 under S.140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for recovery of demand of tax, whereas, the Bank in compliance of notice dated 01.03.2024 transferred an amount of Rs.1,678,0814 in favour of respondent / Department---Validity---Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, prescribes a method of computation of the period of limitation, which excludes the date from which any act has been ordered to be performed as well as the last date upto which the act can be performed---Applicability of said section is not only limited to statutes and notification but is also applied while computing the period of limitation as fixed by any judgment, decree or order---When S. 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is pressed in service in computing the period of 30-days, the day on which the order was passed will be excluded and it will be reckoned from the date succeeding the date of order---In the present case , the injunctive order was passed on 31.01.2024 whereby the operation of the impugned notice was stayed for a period of 30-days ; by excluding the day on which the order was passed, such period started on 01.02.2024---Month of February 2024 comprised of 29 days, hence, the order dated 31.01.2024 was to expire on 01.03.2024 but before that the respondent/ Department issued the impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 for recovery of impugned demand of income tax to the Bank for attachment of the bank account of the petitioner upon which the Bank also transferred amount of Rs. 1,678,081 in favour of respondent---Petitioner applied for extension of stay which was strongly opposed by the respondents / Department but the Tribunal while granting an opportunity of hearing extended the already granted stay for a further period of 30-days vide order dated 29.02.2024---Thus, the stay order dated 31.01.2024 and extended stay order dated 29.02.2024 were in field on 01.03.2024 when the impugned notice was issued, but bank account of the petitioner was blocked and an amount of Rs.1,678,081/- was transferred in favour of respondent---In these circumstances, this act of the respondent / Department was illegal, unlawful and ultra-vires and was not sustainable in the eyes of law---High Court set-aside the impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 as well as the action of respondents / Department qua attachment of the bank account of the petitioner and respondents were directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,678,081/- deducted from the bank account of the petitioner, however, Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, being the competent Authority, would decide the fate of the demand-in-question in appeal filed by the petitioner pending before it---Constitutional petition, filed by tax-payer, was allowed accordingly.

SITARA DILDAR FUELS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2025 PTD 631 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD