ISLAMABAD: A division bench of Islamabad High Court disposed of a M/S Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited with directives the Large Taxpayers Unit to hear and decide appellant’s application within 30 days and submit report before the bench.
IHC bench, comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb issued these directives while disposing of a matter filed by M/s Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited. The appellant had filed a case challenging a show cause notice issued by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, Islamabad. The bench had recently reserved the decision of the case following completion of arguments by sides on the day.
M/s Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited had filed case against LTU, Islamabad. It had prayed the court to direct the respondent on hearing its application for relief pending before the department’s officials.
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (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 Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited had filed the case seeking restrictions for LTU, Islamabad about recovering outstanding tax amount or making any other coercive move prior to court’s directions on the issue.
M/s Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited also stated that show cause notice mentioning outstanding tax amount was issued with mala-fide intentions. The appellant further prayed the court to bar LTU from taking coercive measure to recover the said amount.
M/s Al Catel Lusent Pakistan 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.
M/s Al Catel Lusent Pakistan Limited 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.
