| Case ID |
25112223-a7de-49d6-bc62-d21f8c7f3dba |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.P. No. D-5107 of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 18, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court ruled on the case concerning the audit selection process under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, particularly focusing on Section 177. The court emphasized that the Commissioner must apply independent judgment and provide legitimate reasons for selecting a taxpayer for audit. It was determined that the notices issued by the Commissioner, which were based on directives from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), lacked the necessary independent reasoning and transparency. Consequently, the court quashed the audit selection notices, highlighting the need for a clear distinction between the powers of the Commissioner and the FBR to maintain the integrity of the audit process. |
| Summary |
In the case of Atlas Honda Ltd. vs. Pakistan, the Sindh High Court addressed significant concerns regarding the audit process under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The court scrutinized the application of Section 177, which mandates that the Commissioner must independently assess each taxpayer's case and provide transparent, legitimate reasons for audit selection. The court found that the audit notices issued by the Commissioner were based on directions from the FBR, undermining the independence of the audit process. As a result, the court ruled that such actions were arbitrary and lacked the requisite transparency, leading to the quashing of the audit selection notices. This case underscores the importance of maintaining a clear separation of powers within tax administration to prevent arbitrary actions and protect the rights of taxpayers. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
PAKISTAN,
ATLAS HONDA LTD.
|
| Judges |
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SHAFT SIDDIQI,
MR. JUSTICE MAHMOOD A. KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi,
Mr. Ijaz Ahmed,
Mr. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi,
Syed Mohsin Ali,
Mr. Hyder AM Khan,
Mr. Shaheer Roshan Shaikh,
Mr. Sami-ur-Rehman Khan,
Mr. Furqan Mushtaq,
Mr. Hamza Waheed,
Mr. Ovais Ali Shah,
Ms. Mariam Riaz,
Ms. Fizzah Bucha,
Mr. Umer Ilyas,
Qazi Umair Ali,
Mr. Anwar Kashif Mumtaz,
Mr. Usman Alam,
Mr. Ammar Athar Saeed,
Mr. Inzimam Sharif,
Mr. Jawaid Farooqi,
Mr. Hussain Ali Almani,
Mr. Amin Bandukda,
Mr. Naeem Suleman,
Rana Sakhawat Ali,
Muhammad Bilal Bhatti,
Mr. Hussain Bohra,
Mr. Ameer Buksh Metlo,
Mr. Fayaz Ali Metlo,
Mr. Imran Ahmed Metlo,
Mr. Barkat Ali,
Mr. Irfan Mir Halepoto,
Mr. Shahid Ali Qureshi,
Mr. Munawwar Ali Memon,
Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Korai,
Mr. Qaim Ali Memon,
Mr. Aatif Awan,
Mr. Ali Tahir,
Mr. Tauqir Ahmed,
Mr. Ayaz Sarwar Jamali,
Mr. Akhtar Hussain Jabbar,
Mr. Iqbal Hussain,
Mr. Muhammad Zubair Hashmi,
Mr. Taseer Ahmed,
Mr. Imran Ali Mithani,
Mr. Shahnawaz Memon,
Mr. Muhammad Faisal Qureshi,
Mr. Ch. Mehmood Anwar,
Mr. Imtiaz Ali Solangi
|
| Petitioners |
ATLAS HONDA LTD.
|
| Respondents |
PAKISTAN & OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2022 SLD 665,
2022 PTCL 253,
2022 PTD 866,
(2022) 126 TAX 505
|
| Other Citations |
Indus Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (WP No. 37213 of 2020),
Pakistan Petroleum Ltd v. Pakistan (2(116 PTD 2664)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
177,
177(1),
213,
214,
214C
|