ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) benches adjourned the hearing of three important tax matters filed against filed offices of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) during the first week of December.
A division bench of the IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, and single benches comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Aamer Farooq heard the cases.
Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the income tax references filed by M/s WiTribe Pakistan.
The appellant had named chief commissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, assistant commissioner Inland Revenue (Withholding), LTU, commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), LTU, and Federation of Pakistan through the FBR chairman as respondent.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan Limited had challenged show-cause notices issued during the month of August for the tax year 2015 under the head of income tax under sections of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Justice Aamer Farooq adjourned the hearing of another tax reference filed by M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited.
M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited had filed the case challenging a show cause notice issued by the Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad. M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited had filed the reference against Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) and had challenged its announcement before the court. The FBR field office and Large Taxpayers Unit’s officers were also made respondents in the case.
A single bench of the IHC comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the matter and adjourned the hearing for further arguments.
The Large Taxpayers’ Unit (LTU), Islamabad, had issued the show cause notice under the head of income tax. The ATIR, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), officers of the LTU, including Commissioner Inland Revenue, Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) were made respondents in the case.
M/s Acro Spinning and Waving Mills Limited had prayed the court to suspend the notice until the decision of the appeal pending before the LTU. The company submitted that the impugned order was issued under mala fide intention and had no legal standing or authority and the court may decide what it deemed appropriate in this regard. It also stated that due legal course was not followed by the department in issuing the order.
