ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday disposed of Islamabad Electric Supply Company’s tax reference challenging tax recovery claim announced by the field office of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).
An IHC bench, comprising of Justice Aamer Farooq, heard the case and barred the Large Taxpayers’ Unit, Islamabad from recovering any outstanding tax amounts from the appellant. The bench also directed the respondent not to take any coercive action in this regard.
Justice Aamer Farooq also directed the LTU to decide appellant’s departmental application within 14 days and submit a report before the bench.
As the hearing resumed on the day, appellant’s counsel argued that the respondent had issued his client an unlawful recovery notice and in doing so had not complied with legal obligations. The bench disposed of the case after hearing sides arguments.
Islamabad Electric Supply Company had filed cases against Large Taxpayers Unit-field office of Federal Board of 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.
Islamabad Electric Supply Company had filed the case seeking restrictions for Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad about recovering outstanding tax amount or making any other coercive move prior to court’s directions on the issue.
Islamabad Electric Supply Company also stated that show cause notice mentioning outstanding tax amount was issued with malafide intentions. The appellant further prayed the court bar LTU from taking coercive measure to recover the said amount.
Islamabad Electric Supply Company 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.
The appellant had also prayed the court to decide the case early as the appellant had to bear financial complications after the case.
The appellant 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.
