ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court on Thursday adjourned hearing of a tax reference filed against Federal Board of Revenue, by M/s Pakistan Oil Field Limited.
IHC division bench comprising Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani heard the case and adjourned the same for further arguments. The bench directed the counsels to submit details of board’s show cause notice relating to the appellant.
M/s Pakistan Oil Field Limited had filed the case challenging an announcement made by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR)-through which it had sustained decision announced by the department’s adjudication pertaining to the show cause notice to M/s Pakistan Oil Field Limited for outstanding tax recovery.
M/s Pakistan Oil Field Limited had filed the reference against ATIR and had challenged it announcement before the court. FBR field office, Large Taxpayers Unit’s officers were also made respondent in the case.
The appellant had submitted that ATIR had maintained decision of LTU adjudication in ignorance of law and the appellant’s submissions were not addressed completely challenging recovery of outstanding tax amount.
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.
The appellant had prayed the court to direct LTU not to recover the said amount and abstain from any coercive action in this regard.
The petitioner had prayed the court operation of the impugned order issued by the tax authority may kindly be suspended till the decision of appeal pending before the LTU.
M/s Pakistan Oil Field Limited 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 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 too.
