| Case ID |
2cbbd43c-10c9-4357-9a52-a1ec82fd9ab2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1973 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 26, 1976 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 20, 1973 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court ruled on the legality of the prosecution of the petitioners under the Income Tax Act, specifically concerning whether complaints could be lodged by an Income Tax Officer who had not completed the assessment. The Court found that the complaint could only be made by an officer competent to assess the case, thus questioning the legality of the prosecution initiated by a transferee officer post-assessment. The decision emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the proper authority in tax-related prosecutions, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petitions based on procedural grounds. |
| Summary |
This case addresses significant issues surrounding the Income Tax Act, 1922, particularly focusing on the procedural aspects of tax assessments and the authority of Income Tax Officers. The Lahore High Court's decision clarified that only the original assessing officer could initiate prosecution under the relevant sections of the Act, reinforcing the need for legal compliance in tax prosecutions. This ruling underscored the complexities within tax law and highlighted the importance of jurisdictional authority in the prosecution process. The implications of this decision resonate in the ongoing discourse regarding tax compliance and the legal frameworks governing tax offenses, making it a pivotal case in the realm of tax law. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Aftab Hussain, Justice
|
| Lawyers |
S. M. Zafar,
Javed Hashmi,
Sh. Abdul Mannan, Advocates, for the Petitioner,
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
Abdul Rashid [C/O Union Traders Gale Cloth, Lyallpur]
|
| Respondents |
SPECIAL JUDGE (CENTRAL), LAHORE AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
1975 SLD 34,
(1976) 34 TAX 199,
1977 PTD 23
|
| Other Citations |
Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (P. L. D. 1964 S. C. 829),
Khalid Waheed and another v. Crown (P. L. D. 1956 (W. P.) Lah. 541),
Crown v. Abdul Rashid (CrI. Appeal No. 51/1955),
State of Bombay v. Parshatum Jog Naik (A.I.R. 1952 SC 317),
Khondkar Ali Afzal v. Pakistan (P. L. D. 1959 (W P.) Kar 105),
The Province of West Pakistan v. Sindh Purchasing Board (P. L. D. 1969 Kar. 653),
Pakistan v. Amin Agencies Ltd. (P. L. D. 1962 Ka. 467),
Morris Jacob & Co. v. Pakistan (P. L. D. 1968 Kar. 580),
K M. Sana v. Government of West Pakistan (P. L. D. 1962 Lah. 509),
Province of West Pakistan v. Mistri & Co. (P. L. D 1959 Kar. 782),
Sind Brick Syndicate v. Tahilramani and another (P. L. D. 1956 (W. P. Kar. 305),
Qamar-uz-Zaman Khan v. Punjab Province (P. L. D. 1955 Lah. 612),
Muhammad Hasham Khan v. Provincial Government N. W. F. P. (P.L.D. 1950 Pesh 13),
Federation of Pakistan v. Amin Agencies (1957 (W. P. Kar 663),
LeClaire Pakistan Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (P. L. D. 1957 (W. P.) Kar. 285),
Muhammad Aslam v. Commissioner (P. L. D. 1949 Lah. 164),
Qadar Dad and others v. Sultan Bibi and the Crown (P. L. D. 1956 F. C. 429),
Muhammad Share v. Muhammad Rafique, etc. (P. L. D. 1968 Lah. 263)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1922
|
| Sections |
51(2),
52(4),
54A(2)
|