ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has decided some important cases involving tax claims amounting to around Rs 11.5 billion during third week of June.
A single bench of the IHC heard the cases and disposed them of with directions to Federal Board of Revenue to hear and decide the stay applications pertaining to the cases filed by M/s Sihala Floor and General Mills (Private) Limited, M/S Pakistan Medical Co-operative Housing Society and M/s BRAC Pakistan.
M/s Sihala Floor and General Mills Private Limited had filed the cases before the IHC seeking stoppage of recovery of outstanding tax amounting to Rs 5,239,242. The court not only accepted M/s Sihala Floor and General Mills Private Limited’s plea to restrict FBR from recovering said amount but also directed the Large taxpayers’ Unit, Islamabad (a field of FBR) to decide the company’s stay application within seven days.
The appellant had challenged order issued by LTU stating that outstanding tax amounting to Rs 5,239,242 was standing recoverable on part of M/s Sihala Floor and General Mills Private Limited.
IHC same bench also directed the Regional Tax Office (field office of FBR) to decide M/s Pakistan Medical Co-operative Housing Society’s application pending before the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue within 60 days and submit compliance report to the IHC.
Justice Aamer Farooq also restrained the FBR from recovering outstanding tax amount of Rs 10,307,597,967 from M/s Pakistan Medical Co-operative Housing Society. Third case decided by the court including big tax claim was filed by M/s BRAC Pakistan. The court dismissed M/s BRAC Pakistan’s plea to restrain Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) from recovering outstanding tax calculated against unexplained expenditures of Rs1,174,717,585 for tax year 2015.
However, IHC issued directions to Large Taxpayers’ Unit, Islamabad to hear and decide appeal filed at departmental platform. However, the court did not direct the LTU on stopping recovery of calculated tax which the appellant had sought from the court. The appellant had challenged order issued by LTU, dated, April 6, 2016 before the court.
