Default by TAX payer to file income TAX returns within the prescribed period

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 2072 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE,RTO, RAWALPINDI
Side Opponent : TRILLIUM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., RAWALPINDI
S. 182(1) [as it stood during the TAX years 2008 and 2009]---Default by TAX payer to file income TAX returns within the prescribed period---Penalty calculated as a percentage of the 'TAX payable'---'TAX payable'---Meaning---Whether the term 'TAX payable' pertained to amount of TAX that remained to be deposited with the return or it referred to the total TAX liability of the assessee for the income year---Held, that expression "TAX payable" originally used in Column 3 of the Table appended to S. 182(1) of the Income TAX Ordinance, 2001 quantified the amount of penalty payable by an assessee in the event of the specified default by him---Being penal in nature, such expression was subject to a narrow interpretation---However, in the year 2011 the said expression 'TAX payable' was clarified to have a wider meaning which increased the leviable amount of penalty---At the relevant time in the present case, namely, TAX years 2008 and 2009, a plain interpretation of the expression meant that the amount of TAX payable with the return formed the base figure for calculating the penalty amount---Prior to the Explanation inserted in column 3 of the Table appended to S. 182(1), the expression "TAX payable" could not be read to impose a larger penalty based on the amount of TAX that was chargeable on the TAX able income of the assessee for that assessment year---In the present case, due to deductions of withholding TAX at source no amount of TAX was payable with the return by the assessee---Enhanced liability sought to be enforced by the TAX authorities under the expanded meaning given by the Explanation in the year 2011 became effective from the time of its promulgation and not prior thereto---Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 2001 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : CHIEF COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, PESHAWAR
Side Opponent : SABRINA TENT SERVICES
Ss. 122(8) & 122(1)---Amended assessment---'Definite information'---Scope---Definite information did not mean a re-analysis of existing information or an analysis of further information that was previously accessible but had not been taken into account (by the TAX authorities).

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1961 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUJAHID SOAP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.
Side Opponent : CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH-I, ISLAMABAD
S. 179(3)---Adjudication---Period of 120 days for rendition of judgment after issuance of show cause notice---Scope---Judgment reserved---Order-in-original was issued by the Collector (Adjudication) after a lapse of 157 days from the date of show cause notice, however, customs authorities contended that the judgment was reserved on the 116th day after the date of the show cause notice, thus, it was within the time period of 120 days---Question as to whether the customs authorities were justified in treating the date of conclusion of hearing and for judgment to be reserved as the date of disposal of the show cause notice---Held, that on the 116th day after issuance of show-cause notice no decision was verbally announced by the adjudicating officer nor was any decision communicated to the parties prior to the subsequent issuance of the order-in-original---Adjudicatory decision could not be said to have been recorded/taken without announcement or communication thereof to the parties---Law was quite accommodating for the TAX ing authority as an extension was available beyond the originally prescribed period of 120 days for rendition of a decision---Even though no decision was communicated within the said period, such an extension could be sought and granted subsequently but in such an event it was mandatory that the decision came within 180 days after the date of show cause notice---In the present case, however, the Collector did not even apply for an extension but consumed 157 days to record the reasons for his judgment and to communicate the same to the parties---Resultantly the impugned decision was beyond time prescribed in S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, and was therefore, held to be invalid---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PTD 1956 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD., KARACHI
Side Opponent : COLLECTOR CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX
S. 3-B---Sales TAX Act (VII of 1990), S. 34---Consignments meant for export sold locally within Pakistan---TAX fraud---Imposition of additional TAX and duty under S. 3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and S. 34 of the Sales TAX Act, 1990---Clear factual finding by the Tribunal provided a sound basis for the imposition of such additional TAX and duty, which finding could not be assailed before the Supreme Court---Appeals were dismissed accordingly.