COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SIALKOT vs WHITE GOLD STEEL MILLS, S — 2025 SCMR 1521 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2025 SCMR 1521 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2025
Reporter: SCMR
Parties: COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SIALKOT vs WHITE GOLD STEEL MILLS, S
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 120; 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

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, SIALKOT VS WHITE GOLD STEEL MILLS, S.I.E. DASKA S. 120(1)(a) & 120(1)(b)---Deeming provision---Effect---Two distinct deeming provisions are contained in sections 120(1)(a) and 120(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Two provisions are directly, and intimately, linked and occur with an immediateness that is instantaneous but such immediacy is not simultaneity---Two clauses apply consecutively, the one following the other in the sequence set out in the provision---Word "and" which links the two must be understood in such sense---It does not only mean that both clauses apply to the return---It establishes also the order in which they occur---That is the very (and only) basis for the "imagining" required by section 120(1)(a) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and having so imagined, the subsection moves immediately to section 120(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Return is deemed to be an assessment order issued to taxpayer on the date the return is filed---Again, there is as a matter of fact no such thing---Yet, by alchemy of the deeming provision, it must be imagined to be so and this second deeming is then bolstered by the words "for all purposes of this Ordinance"---Provision of section 120 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requires first that it be imagined that the Commissioner did something that in fact he did not do, i.e., "made" an assessment and then, him having so acted, requires secondly that the return be imagined to be an order on the assessment so made and issued to the taxpayer on the very date it was filed.

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR

2025 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Absconsion of accused---Not participating in funeral of wife---Ac…
2025 SCMR 1591 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD IJAZ VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Promptly lodgment of FIR---Accused was alleged to have committed…
2025 SCMR 1742 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly we…
2025 SCMR 1730 SUPREME-COURTFARMAN ALI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond the shadow of any slightest doubt and the b…
2025 SCMR 1580 SUPREME-COURTMUHAMMAD BILAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---Accused was…
2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURTOBAIDULLAH VS State Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance should be linked with each othe…

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