COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S

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

COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S. 74---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24A---Condonation of time-limit---Order passed under S.74 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Reasons to be given---Pre-requisite---Though there should be no room to escape tax liability through official and institutional manipulation, however, in such cases, the Federal Board of Revenue / Respondent has to lay the reasons at the outset, which are conspicuously missing in the present case---It is axiomatic that no statute can muffle fundamental rights and must at all times advance the public interest and remain constitutionaly compliant---If the competent authority is of the view and opinion that the case of the petitioner /taxpayer falls within the mischiefs, which require condonation of delay for opening a past and closed transaction, there should have been reasons to do so---Forming an opinion by acompetent authority requires that such opinion be supplemented with reasons---The Respondents / Department were bound to supply the reasons and petitioner / taxpayer was entitled to areasoned order---Supplying reasons in an order or decision is not achoice, instead, it is incumbent upon the authority and an essential attribute of a sustainable order---The chain between the conclusion and fact in a decision is broken if there are no reasons---Term 'reasons' has not been defined in statutory law, but in common parlance or in terms of reasonable prudence, the presence of reasons is what confirms whether an order or decision is lawful, reasonable and complies with the provisions of law and element of reasonableness---The reason is very life of law, for when the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases, because reason is the foundation of all our laws(Wharton's Law Lexicon)---Order passed by an authority must contain reasons, enabling an affectee to challenge the same before appropriate forum but if such an order does not contain reasons, the availing of remedy was of no avail as there will be no grounds to test the vires of such an order, which is meant to collapse for its own liability---Thus, the impugned order being devoid of any reasons, having been issued without an opportunity of hearing, could not withstand any test of due process and administration of justice---High Court set-aside the impugned order with the result that the Show-Cause Notices issued on the basis of the impugned order were declared bad in law and of no legal effect---Constitutional petition, filed by Company / Registered Person, was allowed accordingly.

COCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION PAKISTAN BRANCH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE S — 2026 PTD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD