ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court on Thursday adjourned hearing on a tax mater filed by M/s Attock Oil Company Limited following absence of main counsels from the court.
As the court resumed hearing on the matter, assistant of respondent’s main counsel appeared before the bench and pleaded for time. The bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq, then adjourned hearing by dating it in office.
The bench was hearing a tax reference filed against Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad-a field office of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
M/s Attock Oil Company Limited had filed the case challenging a show cause notice issued by the Large taxpayers Unit, Islamabad. Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) through which it had sustained decision announced by the department’s adjudication pertaining to the show cause notice issued to M/s Attock Oil Company Limited.
M/s Attock Oil Company Limited had filed the reference against ATIR and had challenged it announcement before the court. FBR field office, Large Taxpayers Unit’s officers were also made respondent in the case.
The appellant had submitted that ATIR had maintained decision of LTU adjudication in ignorance of law and the appellant’s submissions were not addressed completely challenging recovery of outstanding tax amount.
M/s Attock Oil Company Limited had prayed the court to direct LTU not to recover the said amount and abstain from any coercive action in this regard. The petitioner had prayed the court that issued order by the tax authority may kindly be suspended till the decision of appeal pending before the field office of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
M/s Attock Oil Company 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.
ATIR, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), officers of LTU including Commissioner Inland Revenue, and others were made respondent in the case.
