| Case ID |
088b379b-f691-4313-beb4-abc9d1ec20f1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 14506 of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 24, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 02, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court in this case examined the legality of demand notices issued under the Income Support Levy Act, 2013. The court found that the Finance Act 2014 had repealed the Income Support Levy Act, but clarified that the repeal did not extinguish the liability to pay the levy that had accrued prior to the repeal. The court emphasized that the absence of a saving clause in the repeal did not negate the rights and liabilities already established under the Income Support Levy Act. The court further ruled that the officers of Inland Revenue had the jurisdiction to issue demand notices and collect the levy, as the liability had already vested in favor of the state. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the demand notices, affirming the authority of the Inland Revenue officers to proceed with the recovery of the levy. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the challenges posed by petitioners against the demand notices issued for the recovery of the Income Support Levy under the Income Support Levy Act, 2013. The Lahore High Court, presided over by Justice Asim Hafeez, addressed the core issues surrounding the legality of the levy following its repeal by the Finance Act 2014. The court determined that even after the repeal, the liability to pay the levy remained intact as it had already accrued. This decision underscores the importance of understanding the implications of legislative changes on pre-existing obligations and the authority of tax officers in enforcing such levies. The ruling serves as a significant reference point for future cases involving tax liabilities and the interpretation of repealed laws, affirming that the repeal does not necessarily erase accrued rights unless explicitly stated. This case is crucial for legal practitioners and taxpayers alike, emphasizing the need for clarity in tax legislation and the responsibilities it imposes. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Federal Board of Revenue,
Federation of Pakistan
|
| Judges |
Asim Hafeez, Justice,
Syed Tayyab Hussain Rizvi
|
| Lawyers |
Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz,
Rai Amer Ijaz Kharal,
Khurram Saleem,
Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema,
Shahid Usman,
Falak Sher Khan,
Shahbaz Butt,
Farhan Shahzad,
Mian Abdul Ghaffar,
Ch. Rehmat Ali,
Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui,
Mustafa Kamal,
Sabeel Tariq Mann,
Muhammd Hamza Sheikh,
A.W. Chaddha,
Usman Javed,
Barrister Haris Sohl,
Monim Sultan,
Hammad-ul-Hassan Hanjra,
Mudassar Shujauddin,
Zahid Imran Gondal,
M. Amjad Khan,
M. Azhar Khan Joiya,
Shahid Abrar Basra,
Syed Abbas ul Hassan Shah,
M. Hamzah,
H.M. Majid Siddiqui,
Ghulam Ali,
Adeel Shahid Karim,
Khalil ur Rehman,
M. Abu Bakar,
Ch. M. Waseem,
M.M. Akram,
Usman Khalil,
Mian Hamza Javed,
Khurram Shahzad Gondal,
Farooq Raza Rajpoot,
Rana M. Afzal,
Umair Anwar,
Shaheryar Kasuri,
Jamshed Alam,
Qadeer Kalyar,
Zafar Iqbal,
Aamer Khan,
Sahar Iqbal,
Syed Tassaduq Mustafa Naqvi,
Ch. M. Shakeel,
Naveed Amjad Andrabi,
Jan Muhammad Chaudhry,
Liaqat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate,
Akhtar Ali Monga,
Syed Tassaduq Murtaza Naqvi,
Azmat Hayat Khan Lodhi, Assistant Attorney-General for Pakistan,
Syed Zain-ul-Abideen, Advocate for Commissioner Inland Revenue,
Barrister M. Saram Israr,
Ijaz Mehmood Chaudhry
|
| Petitioners |
Ch. Rehmat Ali,
Farhan Shahzad,
Rai Amer Ijaz Kharal,
Zahid Imran Gondal,
Mian Abdul Ghaffar,
Shahbaz Butt,
Ghulam Ali,
Khalil ur Rehman,
Naveed Amjad Andrabi,
Mustafa Kamal,
Sabeel Tariq Mann,
Muhammd Hamza Sheikh,
A.W. Chaddha,
Usman Javed,
Khurram Saleem,
Barrister Haris Sohl,
Monim Sultan,
Hammad-ul-Hassan Hanjra,
Mudassar Shujauddin,
Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz,
M. Amjad Khan,
M. Azhar Khan Joiya,
Jan Muhammad Chaudhry,
Shahid Abrar Basra,
Syed Abbas ul Hassan Shah,
M. Hamzah,
H.M. Majid Siddiqui,
Adeel Shahid Karim,
M. Abu Bakar,
Ch. M. Waseem,
M.M. Akram,
Usman Khalil,
Mian Hamza Javed,
Khurram Shahzad Gondal,
Farooq Raza Rajpoot,
Rana M. Afzal,
Umair Anwar,
Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui,
Shaheryar Kasuri,
Jamshed Alam,
Qadeer Kalyar
|
| Respondents |
Zafar Iqbal,
Ijaz Mehmood Chaudhry,
Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema,
Liaqat Ali Chaudhry, Advocate,
Aamer Khan,
Sahar Iqbal,
Shahid Usman,
Akhtar Ali Monga,
Syed Tassaduq Mustafa Naqvi,
Syed Tassaduq Murtaza Naqvi,
Azmat Hayat Khan Lodhi, Assistant Attorney-General for Pakistan,
Syed Zain-ul-Abideen, Advocate for Commissioner Inland Revenue,
Falak Sher Khan,
Ch. M. Shakeel,
Barrister M. Saram Israr
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 876,
2019 PTCL 419,
2019 LHC 1204,
2019 PTD 1414,
(2019) 120 TAX 182
|
| Other Citations |
2017 PTD 83,
2016 SCMR 108,
PLD 1985 SC 376,
1999 YLR 204,
PLD 2001 LAHORE 78,
2012 CLD 1339,
2016 PTD 1339,
PLD 1971 SC 252,
2015 PTD 2368,
2008 PTD 1715,
1993 SCMR 1589,
2013 SCMR 314,
2012 SCMR 1860,
2016 PTD 1649,
2017 PLC (C.S) 943,
2017 PTD 1178
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Support Levy Act, 2013,
General Clauses Act, 1897,
Income Tax Rules, 2002,
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
6,
2(c),
2(1)(g),
2(11),
2(12),
3,
4,
4(2),
4(9),
4(10),
4(11),
4(12),
9,
Part IV of the Second Schedule,
2(38),
2(38A),
2(68),
74,
74(1),
210,
239(1)
|