ISLAMABAD: A division bench of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday adjourned the hearing of a couple of tax matters challenging tax recovery claims announced by the field offices of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
As IHC division bench, comprising Justice Shaukt Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, held the hearing of re-submissions of cases by M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited and M/s Aftab Traders, the bench adjourned further proceedings after taking notice of the submissions and initial arguments by the sides.
M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited and M/s Aftab Traders had filed cases against Large Taxpayers Unit-filed offices of FBR.
M/s Aftab Traders had challenged ATIR decision pertaining to their tax complaints contesting show cause notices issued by LTU, Islamabad. The appellant had challenged show cause notice for recovery of Rs 2,311,870 in head of income tax.
ATIR, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), officers of LTU including commissioner Inland Revenue, deputy commissioner Inland Revenue and Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) were made respondent in the case.
M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited Islamabad had filed the case seeking restrictions for Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad about recovering outstanding tax amount or making any other coercive move prior to court’s directions on the issue.
M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited Islamabad also stated that show cause notice mentioning outstanding tax amount was issued with malafide intentions. The appellant further prayed the court bar LTU from taking coercive measure to recover the said amount.
M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited submitted before the court that the impugned order was issued under mala fide intentions and had no legal standing or authority and the court may decide on relief which it deemed appropriate in this regard. It also stated that due legal course was not followed by the department in issuing the order.
The appellant had also mentioned that departmental obligations were not met amid processing the notice of recovery demand while later the adjudication did not addressed grievances of the appellant too.
