KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Commissioner (Appals-II) Inland Revenue, Karachi, to decide the appeal of the petitioner within four weeks. The court took this action on a constitutional petition filed by M/s Wackenhut Pakistan Limited against the impugned recovery of income tax of Rs 62.553 million, including default surcharges of Rs 11.360 million.
A two-member bench, headed by Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, was hearing the petition. During the hearing, both sides completed their arguments and the court disposed of the petition with following direction: “The Commissioner (Appeals-II) Inland Revenue, Karachi may decide the appeal of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt this court, which may be communicated to the said commissioner (appeals) by the petitioner within one week. It is further directed that in case of any adverse action or order, if passed by the commissioner appeals against the petitioner, the respondents may not enforce the recovery of impugned demand for another period of 7 days from the date of receipt of such appellate order to enable the petitioner to seek further remedy in accordance with law.”
Earlier, counsel for the petitioner stated that it is engaged in the business of security services in Pakistan and paying all liabilities accordance with law, however, the Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue E&C Range A&B, Zone-II issued notice to the petitioner for recovery of Rs62,553,798 including default surcharges of Rs11,360,667 in respect of income tax.
According to the petitioner, it approached to Commissioner (Appeals) and filed appeal along with stay application, petitioner apprehends, immediate and direct coercive action its assets by the respondents.
Citing Sectary Ministry of Finance, Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II), Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III Large Taxpayer Unit and Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue E&C Range A&B, Zone-II as respondents, importer pleaded the court may declare that act of the respondents is illegal, mala fide and arbitrary, it also pleaded the SHC may restrain them from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
