ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will hear four tax references filed against the field office of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on Wednesday.
Two benches of the IHC would hear 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 would be heard by a division bench headed by Justice Athar Minallah and fourth would be heard by another IHC division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb.
The appellants had challenged the recovery notices before the IHC through the said cases. The LTU had issued the recovery notices in recent months in head of different taxes.
IHC division bench comprising Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb held initial hearing of income tax references filed recently. The bench heard arguments from appellants and adjourned hearing.
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 Federation of Pakistan through the chairman of Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as respondent in the case.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan Limited had challenged show-cause notices issued during the month of August for the tax year 2015 in head of income tax under sections of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
M/s WiTribe Pakistan 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 notices issued by the tax authority may kindly be suspended till the decisions of 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 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.
