KARACHI: Hum Network Limited has approached the Sindh High Court (SHC), challenging show cause notice for the tax year from 2012 to 2015 under Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, issued by Assistant Commissioner Unit – 21, Sindh Revenue Board.
The petitioner stated in its constitutional petition that it has launched transitional satellite channels and core area of operation are production and paying all liabilities regularly, however, the Assistant Commissioner Unit – 21 Sindh Revenue Board issued a show cause notice dated May 7, 2016 to the petitioner under section read with 23 ( I A) of the act for the periods ended on 2012 (July 2011 to June 2012) June 2013 (July 2012 to June 2013), June 2014 (July 2013 to June 2014), June 2015 ( July 2014 to June 2015 ) and the impugned notice alleged that as per the petitioner’s financial statements for the above periods the petitioner had provided or received taxable services under the act but had neither declared such tax with the Chairman FBR, nor paid Sindh Sales Tax on Services.
According to the petitioner, it informed the respondents that petitioner has duly furnished its Sindh Sales Tax on Services returns. Moreover, the petitioner is not under any audit, inquiry or investigation and neither has it been issued any prior notice under 23,28,29 or 52 in respect of it subject periods. It said that Chairman FBR does not have jurisdiction to issue any notice or pass order in respect of withholding of Sindh Sales Tax on Services under the Act. Assistant Commissioner Unit-21, SRB attempts to assess and recover withholding tax allegedly short-paid by the petitioner are malafide, without lawful authority, ultra vires section 32 and 35 of the act and consequently void ab initio.
Citing Chief Secretary Sindh, Chairman Sindh Revenue Board, Commissioner -IV Sindh Revenue Board, Assistant Commissioner Unit – 21, Sindh Revenue Board as respondents, Petitioner pleaded the SHC may declare that the impugned notice dated May 07, 2016 is malafide, without lawful authority, illegal and void ab initio, it also pleaded the Court may restrain to the respondents from taking any coercive measures against it.
