ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of four tax references against field office of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
Two benches of the IHC heard the tax references filed by M/s TNB Liberty Power Limited, M/s Fauji Cement Limited, M/s Wateen Telecom Limited and M/s WiTribe Pakistan.
The first three cases were heard by a division bench headed by Justice Athar Minallah. The bench ‘dated in office’ hearing of these references with directions to submit supporting documents to the counsels involved.
The appellants had challenged the recovery notices before the IHC through the said cases. The LTU had issued the recovery notices in recent months under the head of different taxes.
Meanwhile, IHC division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb adjourned the hearing of another tax reference for the next weeks. This bench was hearing a case filed by M/s WiTribe Pakistan.
Through both the references, M/s WiTribe Pakistan had named chief commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, assistant commissioner Inland Revenue Withholding, LTU, commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), LTU, and Federal of Pakistan through the chairman of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as respondents in the case.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan Limited had challenged show-cause notices issued during month of August for the tax year 2015 under the head of income tax under sections of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan had prayed the court to direct the LTU not to recover the said amount and stay away from any coercive action in this regard.
The petitioner had prayed the court operation of the impugned notices may kindly be suspended till the decisions of the appeal pending before the LTU.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan submitted before the court that the impugned show-cause notices were 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 a due legal course was not followed by the department in issuing the orders.
The appellant had also mentioned that departmental obligations were not met amid processing the notices of recovery demand while later the adjudication did not addressed grievances of the appellant.
