COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD vs PAKISTAN LNG LIMITED — 2026 PTD 192 SUPREME-COURT

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

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD VS PAKISTAN LNG LIMITED. Ss. 137(2), 138 & 140---Adverse order passed by the Department---Recovery of tax from third parties holding money on behalf of the taxpayer---Timeframe---Immediate coercive recovery---Scope---Terms "amount payable" and "tax due"---Scope---Within a short span of time (of about eight and half hours), from the decision by the Commissioner Inland Revenue-Appeals and it being uploaded on the FBR's web portal, notice for immediate recovery from Bank was sought by the Department on the same date as the notice---Legality---In a scenario in which the assessment order is modified upon appeal, resulting in a reduction of the "amount payable", it becomes crucial to determine whether the original demand notice under Section 137(2), which was issued in accordance with the initial assessment order, remains valid, or would it be necessary to issue a new demand notice that aligns with the revised amount specified in the order on appeal?---The answer is that a fresh demand notice would indeed be necessary---This is because the original "amount payable" as assessed in the initial assessment order has been modified and effectively merged with the findings of the order on appeal, thereby necessitating an updated notice to reflect the revised amount---Consequently, given the facts of the present case, the Commissioner was required to issue a fresh notice under Section 137(2) reflecting the amounts determined in the appellate order, demanding payment from the taxpayer (respondent) within a fresh 30-day period---Only if the taxpayer (respondent) failed to pay the "amount payable" as established in the appellate order within the allotted time could the recovery mechanisms provided in Section 138 or 140 be activated---Given that no notice under Section 137(2) had been generated after the appeal, no amount could be considered as "tax due"---Therefore, any recovery actions taken based on that premise would be deemed invalid---Thus, the petitioner-Revenue Department remained unable to substantiate the validity of the notice under Section 140 of the Ordinance, 2001, consequently, no disturbance in the acceptance of the taxpayer's (respondent's) writ petitions and dismissal of the petitioner's (Revenue's) Intra-Court appeals were made out---Appeals, filed by Department, were dismissed.

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD vs PAKISTAN LNG LIMITED — 2026 PTD 192 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD